7 Comments

Bashing TechCrunch Is Just Stupid, It’s Not A Blog

Nov 1, 2006
by

Mike goes off on his doubters who bring the hate for his site.

TechCrunch is a new kind of publication. We don’t fit into a neat little box like traditional media, who refrain from financial conflicts of interest with their readers and feel that they are therefore above reproach. They aren’t, but they really, really feel that they are, and look down on blogs and other media as the unwashed masses. Yes, I’m grouping them unfairly, but the really good reporters will all soon be on their own anyway, so this will be completely true eventually.

TechCrunch is different. TechCrunch is all about insider information and conflicts of interest. The only way I get access to the information I do is because these entrepreneurs and venture capitalists are my friends. I genuinely like these people and want them to succeed, and they know it and therefore trust me more than they trust traditional press.

Exactly. Here’s what everyone needs to get over and stop hating on.

TechCrunch isn’t a blog (although it does have comments :) .

Techcrunch isn’t the NY Times.

Quit thinking those thoughts and you’ll get over it.

TechCrunch is a privately owned web business run by a personality.

Keyword: business.

Therefore, it can do whatever the heck it darn well wishes, with disclosure or not, nepotism and anything else it wants to do. If you don’t like his “business rules”, well, then, don’t read, just as you would stop reading/viewing/listening to a magazine/tvshow/radio program if you found out that all the feature articles were ads.

Stop calling it a blog or newspaper, it’s neither.

About Jim Kukral

You can find Jim on Twitter: @JimKukral.

Filed under: Online Publishing
  • Jonathan (Trust)

    Not a blog?

    http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/08/exclusive-sc…

    Title Tag – Techcrunch >> Blog Archive

  • Jonathan (Trust)

    "TechCrunch, founded on June 11, 2005, is a weblog dedicated to obsessively profiling and reviewing new Internet products and companies."

    is a weblog and it has comments :)

    http://www.techcrunch.com/about-techcrunch/

  • http://www.thoughtshapers.com Jeff Molander

    TechCrunch is a new kind of publication. We don't fit into a neat little box like traditional media, who refrain from financial conflicts of interest with their readers and feel that they are therefore above reproach.

    This is typical Mike. Notice the insertion of overly emotional, presumptuous yakity-yack ("they are therefore above reproach"). I feel that your comments, Jim, are also typical of your stance and you have ever right to your viewpoint. That stated, bloggers (Jim and Mike) want it both ways. They want to be able to say things like the above and they also want to have an un-written contract with their audience — an assumed standard. This includes ethics. The PayPerPost rants that Jim and Mike are prone to are direct evidence of the fact that they want to have these un-written contracts yet, at the same time, loathe them as "hippie bloggers". No offense intended, guys.

    They want standards and rules because doing so is "ethical" and publisher-like (a "powerful blog") but then again the cool factor drops. They're no longer cutting edge when they do so.

    They feel a strong need to have ethical guidelines, rules, etc. Yet they ALSO feel that, being bloggers, they can break those same rules and re-write them as the wind blows — selectively.

    I have said this numerous times before and have yet to hear anyone argue against my perspective on this. I am open to hearing those of other Revenews readers.

    Respectfully,
    Jeff

  • http://www.revenews.com Jim Kukral

    Jeff, I have no idea what you're talking about. What do I want both ways? I don't get it, you lost me.

    Do you have a parrot on your shoulder?

  • Jeff Doak

    I think this is a much bigger issue than just bloggers trying to determine best practices and ethical standards for discussing products (though, for the record, I think Mike is absolutely correct in defending himself while still bashing pay per post).
    Media of all kinds generally only exists because it is funded by advertising. The NY Times, CNN, evening network news would all disappear if they didn't blend their content with advertising. As consumers, we understand that. It only becomes a problem when there is an obvious conflict of interest that isn't disclosed. If we find out, for instance, that certain radio personalities push a government's agenda on education reform without disclosing that they were compensated for that endorsement, we consider that unethical (and possibly dangerous).
    Pay Per Post is problematic because it is unclear whether the blogger is fully disclosing that the only reason they are promoting a product is because they are paid to do it. Mike's blog, on the other hand, is built on the premise that he is a participant in many of the companies he reviews, and he always discloses those relationships. This is not "having it both ways." That is simply the most ethical way he can behave in the situation he is in — that of a blogger who both participates in, and comments on, web 2.0 businesses.
    Jeff — you have argued before that "bloggers are bloggers not journalists … we are under no obligation to back up our statements or go further to prove anything to anyone". If that's the case, why do you even consider this an issue worth discussing?

  • http://www.jimmydaniels.com Jimmy Daniels

    It most certainly is a blog, if you ask me it fits the mold perfectly. Good articles, good discussion, I visit it everyday and I've never, ever thought he was not tied to some of these companies.

    I've created many, many pages for no other reason than to get traffic and drive sales, as most here have and probably still do. As affiliates it was always general practice to not mention your affiliations, so I don't understand the uproar over PayPerPost, or whether Michael Arrington discloses all of his relationships. He built the site, attracted the readers, he should be able to make money or gain influence from his work. Just as any blogger should be able to make some money from some of their posts, it's their website, their content, if no one agrees with it, their visitors will quit coming back.

    Let the webmaster who has never posted anything with the thought of earning money or influence cast the first stone.

  • http://www.affgoo.com Durk Price

    I am an unabashed fan of TechCrunch. I think he does a pretty good job of warning the reader that what is on the page is his opinion and that he doesn't take himself too seriously… most of the times… also a benefit.