A week ago Wired Magazine voiced its displeasure over our syndication partnership with the Washington Post. Wired’s Betsy Schiffman wrote “We’ve got nothing against TechCrunch, but it seems crazy-crazy to us that the Washington Post, a paper known for the sort of reporting that can take down U.S. presidents, is publishing content written by a dude who invests in the companies he writes about. But what do we know.”
When I read this I thought “WTF?” (with an emphasis on the “F”). Wired is a competitor to TechCrunch, but we’ve been on friendly terms with them for years now. Editor-In-Chief (on the print side) Chris Anderson and I were on Charlie Rose the same night a month ago, and Chris wrote some nice words about me in his post about the show. Wired’s Fred Vogelstein also wrote an awesome profile of TechCrunch in 2007.
So back to Wired’s slap at us. They seem to be concerned that I have personally invested in a handful of startups (all disclosed here) and we occasionally cover those startups and their competitors. And even though I disclose those relationships, Wired’s position is that the Washington Post should terminate the syndication relationship with us.
I responded to the article as succinctly as possible here (written after a night of heavy drinking at the Time 100 party) and then followed up with additional Twitter messages suggesting we hold a Wired burning party. I chose Twitter specifically for this response to make sure Wired knew I wasn’t happy with the post, but I specifically didn’t write about it on TechCrunch or even CrunchNotes to keep things relatively calm (I have 16,000 or so followers there, v. TechCrunch’s audience of 3 million or so plus feed subscribers). I also then let the matter drop, as I had made my point.
Emails to people I know at Wired went unanswered. Schiffman emailed me on May 9 with further attacks and a request for comments and details but I didn’t respond. Frankly, she’s proven herself to be a troll, and so anything I write might as well be public here on TechCrunch. And, as I said, I let the matter drop.
But then today Schiffman wrote a follow up article on the same issue. No new facts, she just wanted to reiterate how much she dislikes the partnership, I guess.
And if anyone thinks this is just something between Schiffman and TechCrunch, it isn’t. I have never met her and don’t know her at all. And her editor Dylan Tweney defended her when questioned by Valleywag about it. He was asked why Wired is now tagging every post about TechCrunch with “Buttmunch,” and if it is the way TechCrunch is referred to generally around the office and he responded “I don’t think it has come into general usage around the Wired.com office. We can always hope, though.”
My Response:
TechCrunch has financial conflicts of interest via advertisers and via companies that I have invested in. I’ve disclosed my personal investments – and as I’ve said many times in interviews, the grand total of the four active investments is less than I make per month in income from TechCrunch.
WRT advertisers, we do not specifically point out when we write about a company that has advertised with us, because no one does and frankly it would be nearly impossible given how many advertisers go on the site over time. We’ve created an ethical wall between editorial at TechCrunch and all revenue activities, which is run by our CEO, Heather.
The Washington Post obviously got comfortable with our policies, since they are syndicating our content.
Glass Houses
I question Wired’s intentions in posting about this, specifically now that they have posted twice. As a competitor they are clearly conflicted when writing about us, and attacks like these, including the childish tagging issue, appear to be little more than attempts to disrupt our deal with the Washington Post. And yes, that means that by the very act of attacking us and this deal, Wired is engaging in the exact behavior it says is unethical. Worse, they don’t even point out the conflict.
We’ve caught Wired in ethical lapses before (they subsequently added a disclosure to the article). And even the big guys are caught with the occasional hand in the cookie jar. I don’t believe we have ever engaged in unethical behavior of any kind on TechCrunch, not even the kinds of lapses seen at Wired and the NYTimes.
I have a lot of respect for many of the writers and editors at Wired. But as far as I’m concerned Wired.com, from Editor-In-Chief Evan Hansen on down to Betsy Schiffman, has clearly crossed an ethical line here. Perhaps they are giving up the fight to write relevant content and are resorting to sensationalist trash like this to generate page views. If that’s the case, it is a shame. I used to love that magazine.
Update: I’ve asked Hugh Macleod to do a cartoon for this fight, and have put a placeholder in until he responds. This is meant to point out how ridiculous this whole dispute is.
Another whine fest by Arrington. Grow up.
Puahahaha…u both are fools. Who f in cares….go back to writing about news that we care about.
“Perhaps they are giving up the fight to write relevant content and are resorting to sensationalist trash like this to generate page views.”
Didn’t you just do the same?
I think Arrington is a cool guy. He discauses his conflicts and eh doesn’t afraid of anything.
come on… wired’s out there attacking TC and Arrington based on BS accusations and this cleared it up 100%. I’m glad that Michael put out a non attacking rebuttal to this attack journalism that the “troll” over at Wired is starting. TC’s 3mm viewers I’m sure will trump that of Wired and it’s a great response. When is the last time you picked up a Wired magazine anyway? Too much garbage on the wired.com site to sift through anyway. Good job Michael. Bravo
Yo what it do. Wired is a pos. I have had enough and I notify them of the last regard. Let’s all defend the fight we must remain intact and in motion. This is what we are about. This is what we do. We must represent the world and make the monies. This is our independence day.
Cordially,
AvJose Grantinho
It’s sad that information providers with such a high ranking and mature writing can get that low. This won’t matter in 2 months now will it? Both of you, in the corner, 10mins.
Good morning. In less than an hour, aircraft from here will join others from around the world. And you will be launching the largest aerial battle in the history of mankind. “Mankind.” That word should have new meaning for all of us today. We can’t be consumed by our petty differences anymore. We will be united in our common interests. Perhaps it’s fate that today is the Fourth of July, and you will once again be fighting for our freedom… Not from tyranny, oppression, or persecution… but from annihilation. We are fighting for our right to live. To exist. And should we win the day, the Fourth of July will no longer be known as an American holiday, but as the day the world declared in one voice: “We will not go quietly into the night!” We will not vanish without a fight! We’re going to live on! We’re going to survive! Today we celebrate our Independence Day!
[crowd cheers]
Wired == Tired. Wired was cool back in ‘00, but then so was George Bush… Times change.
Let’s get their gamertags and beat them at halo. then teabag them.
When I was hanging out with geeks in Amsterdam and Israel all I heard was “TechCrunch” “TechCrunch” “TechCrunch” Wired should worry about its own brand.
Speaking of link bait…
http://www.yout...h?v=NwrL9MV6jSk
Every post Kara Swisher of the Wall Street Journal writes about yahoo, iac, facebook, is a massive conflict of interest which she dismisses with a “disclosure”. If the WSJ is OK with this, it is shocking that Conde “paid reviews” Naste would have a problem.
Wired has a point (albeit trivial) about TC/Arrington writing about companies that he has investments in…it seems fairly unethical from a journalistic point of view. HOWEVER, any sort of criticism around the issue shouldn’t be voiced publicly, and should be handled behind the scenes. Otherwise it gets into this he said she said nonsense which comes across as unprofessional and immature.
This should be posted at http://www.whogivesacrap.com not at TechCrunch.
Seriously?
If you’re trying to prove that you are a serious writer who can rise above personal involvement and give readers a fair, unbiased picture of what’s going on out here, this is a hell of a way to do it.
no comment
@”Bill Pullman ”
You just made my night
You should submit this in the “Haywired” category
ok, don’t forget to cover startup news though.
btw, of course TC is not an objective media (ex: barely-used video comment system), that’s what makes it entertaining.
Wired Looks Silly {seesmic_video:{”url_thumbnail”:{”value”:”http://t.seesmic.com/thumbnail/Xdho5gJNV6_th1.jpg”}”title”:{”value”:”Wired Looks Silly ”}”videoUri”:{”value”:”http://www.seesmic.com/video/id960mNdh1″}}}
Come on guys, we know Techchrunch is just a small network of power and attention grabbers.
TC has subtly overtaken the minds of techies working on startups and is destroying competition by writings that are 100% biased towards the business interests of people behind TC.
TC sucks. And oh all those YCombinator startup competitions – stay away from them too. They rip off ideas from there and then invest in teams asking them to build one of those ideas. Of course the implementation by this team sucks.. but hey they do get a lot of traffic in the beginning when TC mentions it.
Such a scam.
I stay subscribed to TC feeds largely cause it is good to be aware of who TC is screwing next and how.
Well done wired.
News sites are taking jabs at each other?
lol.
They should both take solace that there are still people who read.
Betsy Schiffman is NOT INCORRECT in her statement.
In fact, it often seems to me that TechCrunch writers looks unqualified and writes unverified BS’s.
But then again, Wired is getting old and is becoming irrelevant in the Valley.
How is investing in companies and writing about them unethical if you disclose the relationships? Unless Wired has proof of an undisclosed, under-the-table deal, I don’t see any leg for them to stand on.
Wired is a rag. It used to be acceptable in 2000, but now its more like USA Today. Sure it looks pretty, but the content inside is all regurgitated. Do they ever get the scoop on anything?
laughing @ Bill Pullman
Think the key takeaway is how other influential media are looking at TechCrunch. In just a few short years, Mike and the team have created a media powerhouse that continues to grow in a time when traditional media are losing relevance.
There are precious few traditional media — like the Washington Post — who get it. Kudos to them for taking this step. The deal is win-win. There are other traditional media that will be watching this deal very closely. If all goes well and there is no reason to expect it won’t, we’ll likely see deals like this increase. Seems to me, wired might be well positioned to be one of those potential partners to the traditional media.
This makes Wired’s response to TechCrunch’s deal with the Post all the more confounding. It also makes it difficult for other traditional media to wade into these uncharted waters. Time might be better spent on a story that looks at new models through which old and new media might partner.
I think there needs to be a rule on TechCrunch. No video comments with your shirt off unless you are a girl.
Good considered, professional response, MA.
Thank goodness there’s one pro journo in the room.
The team at wired should be embarrassed. In the first post they got caught using an image without permission, the photog bitched, and they had to replace it. In an article, whining about what they feel is borderline ethics!!!
MA 3 – Wired 0
{seesmic_video:{”url_thumbnail”:{”value”:”http://t.seesmic.com/thumbnail/PEnpt64rzA_th1.jpg”}”title”:{”value”:” ”}”videoUri”:{”value”:”http://www.seesmic.com/video/nfmqOV7xml”}}}
I don’t like you Michael, but keep fire
Loren Feldman looked silly.
Michael: How is this relevant to your mission of “obsessively profiling and reviewing new Internet products and companies”? Stay focused. These personal attacks turn me off.
Wired clearly has some editorial issues to deal with if behavior like this is leaking through the cracks.
Best to TechCrunch–new media (TC) sockin’ it to slightly less new media (Wired), while pairing with the old media (WashPost).
Who wins? I think the point is that no one wins outright anymore for any extended period of time.
Sorry Michael- I read your blog religiously, but for now, there is still a difference between blogging and journalism.
I wonder what John Battelle’s opinion is on the fact that a company he founded (Wired) is bashing on a company he sponsors (TechCrunch) through Federated Media.
I think that Wired Magazine does a great job of capturing interesting information, but their blog writers seem so biased and disgruntled.
I commented earlier without actually even reading the Wired stories. After doing so, Arrington comes off as even more of a jackass than I initially thought. I bet many of you have also commented without reading the Wired story, so I’d suggest you guys do so.
The first story was a gentle criticism of the TC/WP deal. Arrington responded unprofessionally and obscenely and further demanded a response from Wired. So then Wired did finally respond with a second story at Arrington’s urging. Yet, Arrington in his story here on TC makes it sound like Wired twice went after him without reason. The real story is that the first post was slightly critical (go read it) and the second was pretty much at the request of Arrington.
Amit,
The word “bashing” does not fit here. Go read Wired’s entry and then comment. If anything, it was more of a critique of WP than TC.
Don’t go down that road. It’s silly.
a. It’s not Wired, it’s some people there.
b. Facts are always better (at least more elegant) than bonfires and angry posts.
Keep it up, you have a great product and that’s the only thing that matters in the end.
jackson – wow, you win a prize or something. you failed to make a single factually correct statement in your entire two paragraph comment.
Rodrigo – No, i actually think bonfires are often the answer.
Michael,
Serious question for you…
Aside from these recent comments from Wired, you’ve probably known for awhile that your investments in some other startups is the only true ‘ammo’ others can use to try and tear you down and what you’re building with TechCrunch.
So my question is… Why not just go ahead and sell/donate your interests in those other startups and just remove that entire piece of possible ammo? And, no, not because of this Wired situation, but just because it’s a some what major excuse for people to use attack you (and may continue to come up); and the fact that not having those interests WOULD indeed improve the integrity of TechCrunch since it, or you, would no longer own stock in companies you cover.
This is BS.
Keep this garbage separate from the real articles.
What a waste of time watching Loren. He spends half the video trying to convince you that he’s giving an objective opinion (keeps repeating over and over that he doesnt like Arrington – therefore he’s objective). Who cares Loren.
A quote from my comment: “Arrington responded unprofessionally and obscenely” [to the original Wired story]
Arrington’s reply to me: “jackson – wow, you win a prize or something. you failed to make a single factually correct statement in your entire two paragraph comment.”
Arrrington’s response to the original Wired story: “Wow. Fuck you too, Wired”
So, Michael explain to me how “Fuck you” is both professional and not obscene.
I’ve not read any comments before I posted mine. But it seems really mean sick, verging on liability to tag someone as a butt munch, not thinking Weirdo… er I mean Wired, even knowing what the word means. (It’s really sick… I don’t mean sic.)
Yes, Mike’s folks can be a little pesky and aggressive at times, but Wired… I don’t blame your employees. Where is your management? And I don’t want to speak to a junior reporter, or her boss, or her boss. I’d like to speak to management please! What do you hope to gain from this?
MA has provided us with the kind of news we need, when we need it, through Twitter and other sources. Wired… I’m sad its come to this… I won’t be renewing our relationship. Yes dear, I have to let you go now, and will not renew my subscription. I’ll even snub you at the newsstand (snif!)
Yes, I know, I know, you were once the princess, and you were the breaking news homecoming queen circa 2002. I do love you, but this is 2008. Information models change and I do wish you all the best. But I’m going out with TechCrunch now. And I feel so exhilarated. Sorry Wired old dear, but I have to let you go.
Hey Michael,
You should start a list of signature who think Wired should shut-up about this issue! As much as I love Wired, I think this is a useless cause that they are pushing. But hey, what do I know. =P
Sean Wing
biasmeme! {seesmic_video:{”url_thumbnail”:{”value”:”http://t.seesmic.com/thumbnail/IfewNlJA3W_th1.jpg”}”title”:{”value”:”biasmeme! ”}”videoUri”:{”value”:”http://www.seesmic.com/video/eXcYfzIZpn”}}}
Michael,
Maybe in the meantime before the wired burning party, you could run a wired related competition?
Maybe some sort of Origami competition involving Wired covers?
Why is it that whenever someone or something, say like TC gets popular and in some eyes “powerful” do people just want to beat it to death. In Australia it is called the Tall Poppy Syndrome. In being Australian it is something I am acutely aware of. Apparently it is pretty active here. Wired, grow up.