Ok, Wired, Let’s Do This.

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.youtube.com/watch?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 

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

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! 

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.

Truthfully, I could care less about this because I don’t read the Washington Post. That being said, the world of syndicated media is filled with conflicts of interests and ethical issues. I know of several magazines that wont review products, artists or editorials unless you pay for ads. I think this article is a great drop in the bucket, there is an ocean of misconduct that goes unsung in this business.

One thing is for sure, Micheal you may have just released the hounds. If your claim to ethical transparency sticks….no worries. If not, I will bet my new MacPro that Wired will try to expose you or your staff as unethical and/or immoral. I would argue that Wired has not stop to consider that maybe Tech Crunch best serves the interest of the Washington Post. But hey what do I know, I’m just a wedding photographer

Peace,
Parris Whittingham
New York City Wedding Photographer

Note: I read Wired every month and I will continue to do so

From Michael’s twitter: “No one at Wired is responding to me today about their post yesterday”.

Michael got the response he wanted today and yet still makes it sound like they are going out of the way to attack him. Michael above says I’m not speaking anything factual, but all I’m doing is quoting him. And it’s not being taken out of context.

But, also lets back up a little. Michael above writes that after the inital post on Wired he concluded that “Frankly, she’s proven herself to be a troll”… so what made Michael conclude that she is a troll?

Well here it is: “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.”

Thats about as a mild of a criticism that could be levied. But, I guess in Michael’s world any opinion that he disagrees with equals trolling.

Check out:
http://www.longtail.com/about.html

And search for “personal background” and “disclosure”.

Michael is right about at least one thing: those in glass houses… Conflicts of interest take many forms, and advertising / personal connections are arguably far more important than relatively small investments. It is an open secret that in any media venture, even the august Washington Post, advertisers influence editorial decisions. The best any organization can do is be transparent about these influences, so readers can judge them on their merits.

You accusing Wired.com of “resorting to sensationalist trash like this to generate page views” made me snort coffee out of my nose. What exactly was that Blaine Cook thing about?

TechCrunch should now be called as “TwitCrunch”

The one thing that Wired is doing that is incredibly amateurish is the “buttmunch” thing. Their original post was harmless and Arrington replied like the blowhard that he is… but referring to Techcrunch as buttmunch is dropping down to Arrington’s level.

Arrington not only writes about the companies in which he invests, he writes about his friends with which he does business. All I ever hear about is Scoble-this and Loic-that or whatever he finds “cool.” Let’s remember that TC is a BLOG - and blogs are essentially opinion organs (albeit a well-organized, well-remunerated one): it is not journalism and it doesn’t purport to be. If the WP wants to syndicate it (let them), they should, in my opinion, call it a blog or they are to blame not Arrington. The information is useful regardless, but caveat emptor. The world is changing and newspapers know they’ve got to change with it. It’s going to be harder and harder to trust authority figures or newspapers just because they say they’re trustworthy. These last couple of years have shown us all that. You have to make your own decisions about the information you rely upon or remain in the dark because it’s only going to fragment further. The democratization of information on the Internet has made it easier (more sources) and harder (less reliable), but would you ever want to go back to before 1990?

the problem here is that they are making personal attacks at Michael and shrugging it off as friendly competition, compete by trying to have better content and negotiate with new sponsers - not by calling the other guy “buttmunch”?

but it’s true, you lot are unprofessional, unethical shills! 3 Million feed subscribers eh! prove it or shut up!

Schiffman’s article wasn’t exactly stellar journalism with her snide comments and catty remarks. But who cares about that. Let the journalists argue over ethical journalism all they want (I do have lots to say on that topic, but I’ll spare you). What matters to me is traffic and downloads, and like TC or hate them, they do drive traffic and downloads, among other sites such as Mashable, Read/Write Web, CenterNetworks and others. I hate to see a fight break out over this because it’s ridiculous. I think Wired.com should stay focused on covering cool companies and the latest and hottest products in order to compete, and not spend time writing about competing sites, such as TC. Leave that to Valleywag.

And on a personal note, I always hear from companies, “get me on TechCrunch.” It’s always about the TechCrunch spike. Not the Wired.com spike. Don’t get me wrong, I love Wired magazine, read it often and have much respect for Chris Anderson. But TC, RW/W, Mashable, CenterNetworks (and others) are the sites that drive traffic. And in my world, at the end of the day, it’s about attracting new customers/users and driving downloads.

Haha! I thought Mr. Arrington had the class to ignore what Wired (its blog) added. Guessed wrong! I love how Valleywag eggs this drama. Great bloggin’!

Michael - You’re a smart guy, but you’re greedy.

Your practices are wrong - it doesn’t matter if you disclose everything - it’s still a serious conflict of interest.

I’ve known many people that were taken down by their greediness, so if i were you, i would watch out.

It’s especially stupid since you claim that you invested small amount of money in those startups.. only means that what their want is not your money - what they want is exactly your conflict of interest. And when they tell someone else that Michael A. invested in them, I’m sure there is a big smile and “understanding” in the room..

careful.

deviation 

Loren Feldman is especially creepity with his shirt off.

I’d like to hear Walt Mossberg’s opinion of this whole deal…

Arrington, do you think you can arrange for that one?

>a syndication deal for a little blog called TechCrunch

Uhh.. is Techcrunch really little ?? Thinks like partiality or trying to build negative image of Mic. Arington or Techcrunch !

What’s the wrong if Washington post reader have something very good story of Web + startup + other interesting stuff as feeds from techcrunch ?

@Michael,
do wired ask you first to provide feed on their site, and you down the offer ? don’t bother about all these stuff !

-Raxit

we don’t care about your conflict with WIred
Keep this to yourself
I don’t give a shit about companies in which you invested and it is clear that you favor your friends on your blog
….
But I know it when I come and visit the blog so I don’t care
Just stop polluying the blog with personal stuff

Jackson, shut the F up.

@JosefVirek Don’t you mean “Wow, Fuck you too, Jackson.”?

Ignore my previous comment. I had too much to drink.

This is inside ball, but hey, it’s entertaining. Wired looks like they are desperate to create page views by stirring this up. Mike is just responding, then it will all blow over…until the next one…

Shampoo, rinse, repeat…

Accusation, counter-accusation, denouement…

Act I - establish plot
Act II - create tension
Act III - resolve the story

Mike,

Don’t worry about it. You forgot to point out that there have been times when you have disclosed who your advertisers are. You’ve got a great site. It’s informative, and substantially interperative. I’m a small deal newspaper publisher and I get in fights with my opponents, but it’s all nonsense. I think we have to look outside the business realm for answers to this one. Leonard Cohen, perhaps, who would beg you “Please, just let it go by ”

Just keep doing what you are doing and anyone with money and such a passion for the cloud as you have would be a fool not to invest and encourage from time to time.

What’s yer dog’s name, by the way?

adt

The devil is the undigested part of the subconscious.

If you keep eating without spending as much time digesting you’re only feeding that autonomous part of your psyche.

Its ultimate purpose is to see you suffer. The archetype of the devil wasn’t pulled out of someone’s ass in a hurry. It’s in your psyche. Not in everyone’s psyche though. Some people spend more time digesting than eating. Others do the opposite.

Have you thought about TechCrunch the movie?

Ooops!

love this video:

http://julianbaldwin.com/blog/.....echcrunch/

This is a pure publicity gimick.
If TC got syndication deal with WashingtonPost,Wired shouldn’t have any problems with that.
Whatever Wired has done simply shows that they want to cash in some extra pageviews.

Michael, I read Techcruch daily, I’m certainly an avid fan, but right now you’re not doing yourself any favours by firstly drawing more attention to this issue than it deserves and secondly coming across like a spoilt… I enjoy your blog, you do a great job, don’t undermine the effort with this nonsense. You’re bigger and better than this.

OK Techcrunch. Let’s do this. Time to unsubscribe from RSS. This reminds of the time years ago when Scoble (another apparent grown man) acted like a baby on his blog which was the tipping point for me. I don’t think I’ve missed anything since. (plus Valleywag reads Scobleizer so I don’t have to). Good thing Valleywag reads Techcrunch to. This is about the equivalent of a YouTube comment fight. Way to go Michael.

down with wired, are they crazy or its just their huge ego thats keeping em from shutting up their betsy. It easy to do with words as buttmuch can be replaced by Hired; Tired; (Over) Fried and possibly retired.. hate them for taking up the nonsense in a pathetic way.

what a load of crap this is. but ultimately irrelevant. I mean, does anyone even read Wired anymore? at their peak they were nothing more than a bit player, an artsy-fartsy fringe magazine that had a hip brand.

Michael, now that I have read both Wired posts, I think your response is appropriate and, if anything, restrained. I take my shots when I think TC is off-base, but in this case, you are in the right. Wired looks jealous, petty and very unprofessional.

Travis, sadly, the trolls never follow through on their promises to unsubscribe.

I trust TechCrunch less because its staff may invest in companies it writes about. I don’t trust the Washington Post less for carry TechCrunch content. They could include a disclaimer and link at the bottom of any TC stories they include

Thing is, Wired was right to point out the TC conflicts and the Washington Post’s ethics for reporters. It’s entirely fair comment and something quite relevant to the informed observer. I mean, the Post compromising its ethics to stay relevant says something about what is happening to the publishing biz.

As for your “fuck you” comment, I think that was fine, too. You can say what you fucking want to and I hope you continue to do so. Don’t go getting of civil on us because you’re doing deal with the Post.

For me as a german, it always leaves a very bad taste, if someone wants to burn books or magazines for that matter. Wired has the right of free speech as have you. Be glad that you have it!

Maybe you rethink the “Burning Wired party” thing. To avoid any misunderstands: I absolutely don’t want to accuse anybody of anything. It’s just what came to my mind first.

@ Mike Arrington: I think you are in the wrong here. Wired’s style is always a little tongue-in-cheek. Your “Fuck you Wired” and subsequent Twitter barrage is, in my mind, what stepped over the line here.

You could quite easily have taken the moral high-ground here and responded in a more mature way that would have made you the winner. But instead you made yourself look the whinger.

Tell me, Mike, how can Ouriel Ohayon, who is a full time VC, be running TechCrunch France and actively contributing to TechCrunch U.S? And how can Roy Carthy, a full time consultant who recently became a scout for an internet-oriented U.S VC, be writing about Internet companies for TechCrunch, having been working if not for them (at least in one case, iMedix, he did) but for their competitors?

These are just 2 examples of how new-media is stretching the definition of ethics. and by “stretching” I mean “ignoring”.

Just by giving a disclosure on companies you invested in, I can’t feel assured about the objectivity of TechCrunch. How am I to know that you DID NOT write about a company becuase you have invested in a competing company? You don’t need to disclose you involvement in a party if the story doesn’t get published, right?.

Journalists (yes, including bloggers who are covering markets) should decide if they are reporters or business-people. you can’t do both and be considered objective.

Michael, you like to Brawl!

Down and Dirty, may the best Troll win.

Poor form Mr Arrington. Quite the overreaction.

“Burning books” from someone who’s income relies of free-speech is not a joke.

If your short-term aim is to promote controversy and website traffic then you are definitely succeeding. But if you long-term goal is to promote blogging as a new outlet for journalism then you are failing.

Wired needs to catch a grip. Their first post was snarky competitor bashing journalism at its most petty. TC is totally above board with its conflicts of interest (although I can never figure out why Mixx gets a mention every time they get a button on a news site but whatever, Mixx is cool).

There are 3 million other readers who either agree or don’t care. “Fuck you” was a pretty legitimate response, don’t you think?

(I’m not going to even pretend to unsubscribe from Wired though, still a great mag)

hey mike,
I LOVE TC

May 13th, 2008 at 11:08 pm

UPS SORRY GOT POSTED BEFORE I WAS FINISHED WRITING

o.k. i love tc. you write a lot of cool stuff.

regarding your comment left at May 13th, 2008 at 11:08 pm - read it again when things have cooled down.

i don’t think that wired acted professional but i dont think it does you much good to destroy a lot of bridges that need a long time to build. I sound like a peacher or a teacher now only because i myself do things in frustration that i later regret. that is exactly the reason i have not got a twitter account

beep beep beep beep 

“What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog”

- Dwight D. Eisenhower

@93

What if the dog is in fact fighting himself?

What wired has is a bad ass graphics team that makes cool magazine covers and a great ad sales team. What they don’t have is great content. i quit buying that thing a long time ago. that place is dead anyway.

One has never fully “arrived” until one has vehement detractors - Live and let Live

@94

Funny. A dog’s nature is to fight himself, and for that you should be thankful.

Could have Jefferson been on to something, Marc, when he said “If your dog were strong enough to give you everything you wanted, that dog would be strong enough to take everything you have.”

Dear Mr. Arrington,

It’s interesting to read about attacks on each other from two prominent Silicon Valley institutions.

Regarding TechCrunch alleged coverage of companies it invests in can only be accepted as a characteristic of America’s capitalism.

That the SEC can fault the dealings of some institutions and let others go free is another case in point.

The Techcrunch vs Wired case is something that can be sorted out amicably without the readers’ involvement.

Suddenly, your competitors know you do not like each other; meaning each time a story appears on either TC or Wired.com, people will be seeking to understand if the story is balanced, or if individuals are seeking to advance their interests.

For now, let good journalism prevail; it will take us time to hang up on Mike and TC

MM

@97

That actually helped me. Thank u.

Can we start like a charity or some sort of drive to send clothes to Loren Feldman? Maybe a tripod even?

Welcome to the Big Time, AR.

You’ll get a lot more of this crap now, but it’s all good if you take it as a compliment.

Attacking your competitor is not innovation.

The ethical distinctions are clear and TC is on the wrong wide of them. Just because you disclose them (holdings) doesn’t forgive your action. Your boorish attempts to justify them just dig you a deeper grave in a competitive marketplace. Twisted logic, obscenity, and half-truths put the nails into the coffin of your quid pro quo publication. You could have done better good, but you did not. Your fifteen minutes of fame are nearly up; perhaps you’ll do something with integrity so that we can remember you that way. You’ve allowed yourselves to be compromised.

“The Art of War”. Is TechCrunch overextended on too many lines of battle? Will they become distracted, unfocused? If that occurs, one can, over time “win the major battles but still lose the war”. And “the better part of valor is discretion”