The Elliot Spitzer phenomenon is part of being human. For whatever reason, people who obtain power can convince themselves that the very rules they create and enforce don’t apply to them. Elliot Spitzer and his prostitutes. Al Gore flying carbon-spewing private jets. Countless others. Whether the transgressions are large or small, something clicks inside the brain of some people or entities who’ve obtained power and they convince themselves they are above the rules.
I’ve seen this in our world, too. When I questioned a New York Times reporter on why they felt they didn’t need to make disclosures in (very occasional) stories where they were conflicted (here and here, for example), he said the newspaper was above suspicion and, therefore, disclosures weren’t necessary (yes, he actually said this).
Conflicts of interest and ethical reporting are something that we are very careful about at TechCrunch. We write principally about new startups, and these companies are usually very nervous about early reviews of their products. We’ve been offered significant cash payments to write about some companies, which have always been rudely declined. We’ve always been extremely careful to disclose any conflicts of interest in our stories (which is usually that I’ve invested in a competitor). These conflicts are very rare.
Despite that, some people have spread rumors that we’re dishonest in our coverage (from what we can tell, these usually start with an entrepreneur at a startup we’ve refused to cover, or gave a negative review to). All of these claims are false. From a reporter who spent years trying to nail us on a conflict of interest:
Arrington, for a reason no one has ever pinpointed, attracts haters at a level far beyond what you’d expect for what is basically an online trade magazine. I learned this firsthand when I wrote for gossip site Valleywag from 2006 to 2008. Despite Valleywag’s cruel, personal posts, we received almost no hate mail and were never accosted in public. Instead, we got mail, phone calls and in-person pleas from people who begged us to take down Mike Arrington. The most common accusation was that TechCrunch sold endorsements of startups, either in exchange for advertising buys on the site, or for outright cash payments.
This is important: None of these claims ever checked out. Sources would claim to know someone who knew something, but these mystery witnesses never showed up to tell their stories to a reporter. Arrington’s success, both as a blog-era publisher/writer and a startup businessman, inflames less successful entrepreneurs and journalists with off-the-scale envy. How does he do that?
Anyone who knows TechCrunch understands why we flee from conflicts. Even if our moral compass didn’t steer us clear, everyone is trying to nail us. One slip and everyone would know about it.
But most tech bloggers don’t have the constant attention to their ethics that we have here at TechCrunch, and those who lack the genetic makeup to always do the right thing are starting to make too many mistakes. One of our competitors, for example, pays their reporters a low base salary and then gives them a bonus for advertising they sell. The result is that when they interview a startup, the conversation ends with a request to buy advertising.
Another competitor owns millions of dollars of stock in a public Internet company. The conflict is disclosed, but there is no one more conflicted in Silicon Valley than this blogger. And yet another competitor recently took a second job as a venture capitalist. I actually trust the reporting of both of these bloggers, but they are in an awkward position.
Another problem we’re seeing is an astounding level of hypocrisy with certain bloggers. Yesterday super-blogger Dave Winer wrote a long post saying something funny was going on with Twitter, since they’ve made accounts for some bloggers (including us) “suggested accounts.” He says this will lead to a conflict of interest.
Perhaps so, although it is important to note that we didn’t know about becoming a suggested account, didn’t ask for it and frankly don’t get that much value out of it. Still, it’s something we need to be aware of and perhaps disclose. We’re also a default feed in some feed readers, and we may need to disclose that as well. Where do we draw the line? I’m not sure, it may need to be continually pushed back as the landscape changes. Transparency is key.
But it turns out Winer has a shady past when it comes to disclosing his own conflicts of interest. After his post yesterday, an ex-employee of his noted that Winer took at least one cash payment of $10,000 to promote a blog in a news aggregator he created. This wasn’t disclosed until the the person who paid blogged about it some time later.
Credibility = Shot. Permanently.
This is where the Spitzer phenomenon comes in. Winer doesn’t see his taking a payment as an issue, saying on Twitter “No regrets, we did the right thing, both in including him and in accepting his gratuity.” Sorry Dave, but you aren’t above the ethical rules you so keenly shout about.
Back to transparency, one change I’m going to make at TechCrunch is to get rid of all of our investment conflicts. I’ve long been an angel investor and have continued to make a very few investments even after starting TechCrunch. These investments are always disclosed and in my opinion we do more than enough to maintain transparency there. But it’s also a weak point that competitors and disgruntled entrepreneurs use to attack our credibility. So over the next few months I’m going to divest myself of all of those investments in an orderly fashion, and I’ll update readers on the progress. I’ll also discontinue making any further investments.
Wow.
It is always great to see someone take the high ground in an industry so filled with anonymous bickering and potshots. Well done Michael.
@ Smart Babes — “in an industry so filled with anonymous bickering and potshots” — You seem to refer to Techcrunch, but what I see here is a reaction to your arrogant attitude and shameless spamming. You don’t miss a beat, do you? Spam using the reaction to your spamming activities – you are really an idiot….
@ Prickley,
I would like to see you enrolled in an Indian Accent Class…
“Right now, American Accent classes are very popular in India and are more or less a prerequisite for those who want to get into telephone tech support. As the web/tech world becomes more Indianize, there may be a shift. Wouldn’t it be ironic, and funny, if some day Americans have to take Indian Accent classes in order to get a job in the United States? Wouldn’t it be ironic if one day an American executive will not be considered legit unless and until he can learn to speak with an Indian accent, so as to make him more intelligible and articulate? “
@Prickly,
Shut up dude… Get a life. Hope you will get well soon.
Who cares if you maintain personal investments so long as your disclose them when appropriate. I see no reason to pretend that you are not a capitalist at heart. Why wouldn’t you put money in something that you believe in?
I, for one, will think no less of you if you do…
I haven’t seen any racism so not sure what you’re talking about, but I have to agree with what people are saying in that I too would like to see Anjali stop spamming. Thanks.
Shut up, already. You are spamming here.
Uh, What? Seems to me like this Anjali person has simply replaced the Locator spammer guy in the TechCrunch comments.
but what if .. she was just writing a normal comment? and just so happened to be a regular techcrunchie (like a whole lot of us?)
plus, you might want to define what is and what is not *spam* – some people think pizza offers in your email inbox is spam, some dont! probably your comment was spam. probably my comment is spam!! aahhh!!
(can you even believe user generated content like this will be used for some social search thingie? haha!!)
@Kartikay – Please don’t be so naive. Well, on second thought, you might be another spammer….
It is obvious that the “Babes” is desperate to increase traffic to her lame blog.
Her comments are wordy and dense, with little or no substance, showing her ignorance of the IT field – A blog doesn’t make an expert, except in Third Word contries….
Eric: the only people who call what Techcrunch covers “the IT field” are retards. Techcrunch doesn’t talk about rolling out Microsoft Office upgrades to your desktop computer. Moron.
Its a shame that you are making Anjali represent the whole of India or “THIRD WORD CONTRIES” in your words. While Anjali’s thoughts may not appeal to you, they certainly dont represent the whole of India.
Being an Indian, it is infuriating to see the way Indians are being represented in this whole discussion. Anjali is not an EXPERT in India or anything. There is a lot of talent in India as well, and it is high time you recognize it.
Nice attack dude .. i mean .. you connected your points so easily
wordy + dense comments + no substance = ignorance of IT field
blog = expert in Third World countries
let me add some for you, maybe you get my drift:
Any Name with Link = SPAMMER!!
SPAMMER! = starving indian blogger = expert
expert != ignorance of IT field
Yes, I’m super smart and I’m the next Zuckerberg. Thanks Eric!
wow you MUST be spamming hard. your pagerank got creamed
Remuneration still exists in your world. Indirect remuneration, perhaps, but a confluct nonetheless.
I point to your old Law Partner Gail Husick and Her Husband Brad, whose company Webaroo you endorsed without disclosing the fact that you and Gail co-authored a book together.
And what about the buddies you co-authored a patent with, Mike?
C’mon, you still aren’t telling the truth.
You spend years cashing in on “Pay for Play” in TC and now you want to clean up your own act, and then have the nerve to lecture your readers on ethics.
No wonder you’re being sued.
to stay on top of the world talk a lot of work
Yep, and this move will put him even further ahead. As a PR consultant, I would recommend he follow this announcement with letting the mainstream news world know he’s available for an anchor position. He had huge credibility before, but now he’s ascended even beyond. This is really cool to see. He’s a role model for me, even though I’m not in his same line of work.
Good move because this was never a good idea.
i disagree, but it’s comments like that that I’m sick of fighting.
If I were you Michael or own a commercial based ad blog such as you, I wouldn’t care if startups pay me to promote them here. In fact, would definitely do that and be open about it. After all you’re running a business to make money and not running a catholic communion service (ie, free service). It is your property and you can do whatever you wish to do. It is yours alone (belongs to you) and not your competitors that own TC.
It may sound unethical, but it is business at the end of the day. Businesses do pay Google for placed advertisements and I don’t see why can’t you or similar other commercial ad-based bloggers do the same.
It’s amazing how many horrible comments are on this blog.
But, it’s easy to see where the anger and hate comes from.
Entrepreneurs will put their heart and soul into a project (and sometimes their life savings). If it’s not listed on TechCrunch and falls flat, they need to blame someone.
“If I had only been listed on TechCrunch, I would have made it. I’d have cars, women, a huge house…” But, in reality… it’s probably their product and NOT the lack of publicity.
One thing I’ve also noticed is that TechCrunch is Branded with Your (Mike) name more than anything. You are the brand.
They have a face to focus their anger towards and not just a logo.
So, this is just my two cents.
Keep your head up Mike. From the posts you’ve been writing lately, it looks like you’re getting ready to cash in and retire to some tropical island.
I don’t blame you… I’d probably do the same thing.
What’s there to cash in for Arrington? edgeio folded one or two years ago. Seesmic is a useless piece of shit site that has no chance to survive make your time. Dancejam? Seriously? Ad infinitum.
** +1 **
I’m not mike, I’m a headphone
I feel that a person can often make a REALLY STRONG POSITIVE out of the many negatives that keep targeting him. Now everyone complains about Mike Arrington being arrogant (rhymes!). So why not Mike complain back? Make a Faceboo… I mean a social networking app where people can **complain** about things they don’t like – in society, in govt, in **e-governance**, in dealing with organizations with more than 1000 humanoids, and many other social, governmental and business entities with like so:
My complaint about this product is this, this and this.
There are enough places to do this already, so why another app to add to the deadpool?
A better interface, for one: Navigating through forums and blogs is a lot of text, too little filtering and too much reading – slashdot has a comment rating system which is good. We need a better version of that and parmeterized comments – if we just want to say +1, we could say this:
Mike: +1,
TC: +2,
Arrogance: -1,
Variety: +2,
Insight: +3,
Speed: +2,
Accuracy: +3,
Feel-good: -2,
etc.
These things are being recommended or discussed for HTML hyperlinks too – Paul Otlet’s “social linkages in information” idea had this done in Belgium back in the 30s-40s before Hitler’s men burned down the working library (shockingly idiotic, but clearly military solutions _never_ work out in the end. ) But I wonder if any startup or Mike is interested in taking this out of academia (various standards groups) and out on the roads. We’ll have a nice fight or two for the patents behind this…
So people, complain like hell, but make a neat UI about it, and I fully expect Mike to cover the first version of this complaint-network – which you could direct towards Mike (WITH the disclaimer that you read this here
) – but add some value, please, not the same drivel – add some multi-touch to it, some microformats, some meta-hyperlinks, some innovation, some ease of navigation like the Apple touchscreen products.
If you want to complain against Mike, sure, but complain well, damn you, you guys are startups – **innovators**, complain innovatively, creatively – and then force Mike into a position where he has to cover our cool complaint product!
Make sense?
Actually, I feel bad for the companies that you are moving away from. I think losing the advise you, as an investor, give is going to hurt.
Well, you have always been more transparent than the news organizations (e.g. GE -> NBC, Disney -> ABC). I think it is a shame that some good ideas might not get funded without you.
what is the big deal… your entertainment.. it is your own blog… who cares what you invest in..or write about as long as it is interesting…
We are with you Mike…do what you have to do and keep doing what you are doing…
@Mike,
The tallest tree draws lightening. Hang in there.
-Dash
Wise words indeed!
… yet stands for centuries, sheltering all who pass his way…
I think people want to take you down because you come off as pious and arrogant in many of your posts. But that’s also what keeps most people coming back.
I agree with ImageCo. The issue here is not conflict of interest — if you are human, you have them and try to manage them as best as you can. I see the NYTimes pov and the same is true for judges, CEOs, school teachers, doctors, etc… None of us are truly without our biases. Some of us are not as clear-cut as others, but honestly, conflict of interest is not the issue.
The issue and anger, in my view, is the style of writing here that somehow relishes in disrespecting individuals of renown or not. The carbon-spewing jet comment about Al Gore is a case in point. I don’t like Al Gore and his stance on carbon is ludicrous, but the guy was the vice-president and has sincerely impacted the world on this issue. You could reference the conflict of interest re: his jet without mocking him or belittling him.
As you found out when someone apparently spit on YOU — life is too short to deal with people who can’t find enough character to go through life with a basic sense of compassion and fairness.
I read this to find out about business models in the tech space. Your colorful language detracts from that, but I put up with it to get the nuggets I like.
I hope you take these comments in the spirit they are intended — not to further heap scorn on you, but to give you some insight into how your style slips into scorn and is — whether you will deny it or not — the equivalent to spitting-upon someone in writing.
rob
That is true, but individuals like me enjoy the tone, humor and honestly of Mike’s work and would be disappointed if it were changed.
Mike, you should continue to invest as it’s your right.
It’s funny how only Mike gets this crap. Other people have this with them too. I realize that only successful and famous people get their share of complaints and crap. That’s just human – jealousy.
Actually I love posts by Mike. It’s awesome. It’s HIMSELF. Why be another person? This is why readers on TechCrunch are loyal.
Watch out! Shazwi = Anjali Sen, the spammer from you know where…
You spoke the thoughts on my mind so eloquently.
+1
Hi,
I’ve been reading Techcrunch for much of its life.
I think that the reason why Mike attracts a lot of scorn, is simply because of his not-shy personality, which was reflected in this blog, as all blogs, being personal writings from an individual, no matter the subject.
However, as time has gone on, and the network has expanded, Techcrunch has simply become a business that needs to act like one as best as possible.
The Company now has its own ceo, sales, conferences, brand beyond just Michael Arrington, millions of readers, and as its all grown and developed, aspects have become more commercial, leading to what any one who wants credibility and integrity should really do…..
Be Professional.
Michael is simply crystalizing the professionalism that he’s already been applying, with these nominal distractions of suggested conflict not allowed to confuse matters going forward. Hopefully!
-some people will never be satisfied, but sometimes they keep us all honest!
Yours kindly,
Shakir Razak
It’s a sad commentary on the nature of the tech community when you feel a need to divest yourself from investments you’ve chosen carefully and always been open about just to be able to better defend yourself from the groundless attacks of competitors.
That’s no fun.
Mike, really, I would not do this. Ive said harsh things about TechCrunch in the past, but Ihave never felt that you were unethical. Really, at least for me, your disclosure has always been sufficient. No need to cut and run from well placed money.
There will always be conflicts of interest. Not always financial ones, but there is always ideology, politics, family, friends, Sillicon Valley, etc, etc……. It’s a fact of life! All you can do is try to manage it as best as possible.
Divest your investments just for the sake of your credibility… i like your dedication to your job.
I say don’t divest. Conflicts of interest be damned. You have the right to invest as you please, and your integrity on these issues has always been obvious. Let the weak minded hate as they please, as you have shown, they usually only prove that they are in the wrong.
Only flaw in your plan– haters aren’t rational. I will admit I have sometimes been among what might be considered ‘haters’ in comments, but I don’t think I’ve ever looked for technical conflict info or anything.
I will generally disagree, dislike the tone, or complain about grammar when all else fails. I think your move is good, but I guess in the end I would say ignore people that for whatever reason are rubbed the wrong way by you, and get on with the positive people, and do your work the best you can.
Maybe think of it like this– how much are people that dislike you worth to you? So then how much time should you spend thinking about and/or responding to them.
Good luck. I’m sure I’ll be pissed about something else soon enough, just ignore it.
Before there were blogs, I can’t think of one actual tech magazine where before or after the interview you didn’t get asked to advertise or pay to attend their conference.
Thats my issue with Calcanis from way back. He never understood how offensive it was.
Frankly, I’d love to see each reporter / blogger have to RATE (scale of 1 to 10) the chances companies they interview. So we could keep a running score, of how fairly they rate, and how right they are. Make the wrong ratings, and ruin your cred permantly. Hit it right, and gain fame and fortune.
So easy to do. So much upside to doing it.
Mike?
a simple hot or not would make a difference and is a start. transparency is something most people cant handle especially the driveby haters. its putting your money where your mouth is. talking the talk and walking the walk. aka character. transparency will be improved when everyone that comments must have a legitimate profile. a simple name, profession, age. i dont think M should stop investing in startups. He has disclosed his investments. stop investing and you could pass up an opportunity of a lifetime. for what? to appease some phantom driveby haters? being the leader of TC is a tough job no matter how you look at it. just keep on being the leading”teflon tech giant” and everything is gonna be alright.
TrustLocator.com – its earned
What the hell is that locator. Go away locator spammer.
I can’t help but see the upside. I also can’t help but see how much there is alike. I have no worries and can’t wait to kick this off !
How else is Al Gore supposed to travel? This is a ridiculous slam. Given the importance of the global warming message and the overwhelming yet underacknowledged science, it wouldn’t be the worst thing for him to emit some carbon….but I’m sure he purchases offsets.
Global warming is a scam, Gore is using fear to generate profits. Gore = Clown.
@Jimmy: “Global warming is a scam”
That I have to disagree, regardless of what Gore’s interests are. The only scam here is the denial of global warming.
> How else is Al Gore supposed to travel? This is a ridiculous slam.
Not at all. Gore came up with this whole ridiculous “carbon credit” crap so he could justify his excessive lifestyle. And he’s convinced thousands (more?) of people that you can just apply “carbon credits” to this apparent guilt and keep your consumption levels as they are.
“Carbon credit crap” is an ia that has been around or t least 40 years. I remember learning about the concept when I studied Ntural Resource Management in college in the late ’60s. Gore didnpt invent it although because it has been kicking around for a long time and many details worked out many feel it is an idea whose time has come.
by bike, electric car, telecommuting, or anything else he’s proposed as a solution
Hey, Michael-
Thank you for this post. I totally agree with your position on both disclosure and on avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.
Reading your post, I kept waiting for the gratuitious Jayson Blair shot at the NYT after the “above suspicion” remark. Congrats on the restraint.
I am a former newspaper man (20 years in) and since 2006 a (Technorati ~1k) blogger.
I think my success, such that it is, comes in large part from a hard-line approach to ethics — which in turn came from my Chinese Wall days as a print guy.
Newspapers as we know them will not survive this information age transition, a fact that you are documenting here better than most. But for all of the problems newspapers have, I think that print journalists have a very complimentary skill set for becoming successful bloggers and/or niche EJ’s. This is largely due to their ethics background, but also because of their writing and budgeting abilities and enterprise instincts.
I think much of the vile directed at TechCrunch is the garden variety kind for your having thought of this niche first, and having executed very well.
It sure as hell could not have been jealousy over your (former) working digs. Even newspaper folks had it better than that!
But again, thanks for the nonstop coverage on both TechCrunch and TechDirt. The quality of content is worth the garden-hose frequency in my reader.
Regards,
David Hobby
@David — figured the Grey lady had learned its lesson with Blair and Bragg episodes, and they do a good job, along with WSJ, NPR and some others of keeping conflicts well below par. I think it’s telling that online sties of, say, NPR and WSJ (allthingsd, especially Kara and Walt) of having crisp disclosure and good feedback/ombudsman routes.
That said, Techcrunch and a rare few others really bat far, far above average in the printless world
The best is when Leonardo Dicaprio tries to lecture me on global warming and environmentalism. This coming from a person who take a private jet to England for a movie premiere the week of the inauguration. He then takes a private jet back to the United States to see the inauguration. He then takes a private jet back to England to finish the movie premiere. I do respect you as an actor, Leo, but seriously, spare us your lectures on global warming. Stick to your singing and dancing on state. Dumb FART!
“One of our competitors, for example, pays their reporters a low base salary and then gives them a bonus for advertising they sell. The result is that when they interview a startup, the conversation ends with a request to buy advertising.”
Is that Mashable.com???? LOL!!!
p.s. re: Purchasing offsets-
I flew BA to London last December, and they had a tick box where I could add $30 and offset my carbons for the R/T flight. Easy choice.
Wish SouthWest would do this.
you can send me a check and I will make sure the carbons you consume are taken out of the environment
LOL.
Carbon footprint = manipulation through guilt, grow a backbone d hobby.
thanks stank, and this is just stage 1 in a 100 stage process to guilt us for even breathing
that’s incredibly selfish
carbon credits are not reciprocated by reduced use anywhere
it’s scum like you who ruin our environment with a ’somebody else’s problem’ mentality
Carbon offset purchasers = scum?
No, they do not reduce power usage. But simple math says that they supply, in part at least, the premium that makes green power more viable.
Transparency has its costs and its rewards. Mike understands that.
Schonfeld: Stay quiet.
Morons: this is TC running scared after Jon Stewart called out CNBC for being cheerleaders for the industry they cover, rather than non-conflicted reporters.
NOW TC wants to remove its legion of conflicts?
Because Arrington has seen the light?
Spare me.
You guys, Venturebeat and all the other shill blogs are part of the PROBLEM, and are in no position to lecture us on what the best soluiton is.
Unbridled arrogance run amok, and enabled by weasels like Erick.
Shhhh, Schonfeld. You’re too interwined with the industry to say anything except “I’m sorry.”
I’m late to the party here, and I read your blog for the info it contains that helps me do my jo and/or enlightens me about tech things.
But, to divest yourself of an income earning opportunity because some witless crank calls you out seems like it will do more harm to you than it will do good.
There are lots of examples of journalists doing a good job of disclosing their interest in companies/products that they write about (such as yourself). Just keep doing that and hang on to your investments.
Just my .02 worth.
how often do you think such investments are successful.
rarely is someone consistently better than chance at the market. so it is with startups. there are better opportunities for income. the real losers here are the startups that would have had his input
I think that’s very commendable and understand the move, but it’s a shame that another startup investor with so much knowledge of the field is ending his run.
like Notorious B.I.G. says…Mo money, Mo problems
I’m a long time reader and fan of TechCrunch and other blogs that cover the high-tech industry.
I believe Michael fairly discloses his investments and I don’t think he should stop divest himself from current investments or stop making further investments.
If anyone has a problem with it, its their problem. Its the same group of people that believe all sorts of crazy stuff…… that 9/11 was an inside job, that the gov’t kidnaps people and plants stuff inside their heads, that vaccines cause autism… etc.
James Randi has a name for those without any kind of inbuilt bullshit-filter: ‘credophiles’
I love scandals!
So, what about your association with Y Combinator?
sigh.
I have no idea about MA and YC, but relationships are what drives business and humanity. So its hard to call people out just for having good relationships with people in the industry. Relationships make the world go ’round.
Mike,
Way to tackle the haters head-on. Of course, what they don’t realize is that you actually feed on the conflict, and have been able to channel that to help make TC successful.
I’m sorry to hear that you’ll be getting out of the investment biz…let me know if you’re selling any particularly juicy investments!
re: Witless cranks
Sometimes the public nature of being a blogger — and wanting to work in an environment of full disclosure — gives the witless cranks more influence than they would/should normally have.
Just sayin’.
“One of our competitors, for example, pays their reporters a low base salary and then gives them a bonus for advertising they sell. The result is that when they interview a startup, the conversation ends with a request to buy advertising.”
Is that Mashable.com? Their site now has all advertising and few articles….really a total mess and not informative
To be fair, I don’t think Arrington needs to go as far as to divest himself of his investments. I do, however, would like to know why he invested in a crap-fest like Seesmic in the first place.
Mike, I have a serious question which is tangentially related to this story. When the New York times makes a mistake in its reporting, it changes the title of the post on its site to reflect the truth. It puts a notice in the very beginning of the article explaining that the article has been changed and what about it has changed. And it corrects the text of the actual article.
These three things combined ensure that 1) People who skim articles don’t get bad info due to a headline left incorrect, 2) People who read the incorrect article and return will quickly see that it’s been corrected due to the notice at the top, and 3) People who read it after it’s been corrected will know that it’s been corrected and how, so that they can inform others if it comes up in discussion (instead of wondering why two people who read the same article came away with such conflicting info).
Techcrunch does none of this. You always leave the original article intact with the mistakes included. You never change the title to reflect the updated status. And you only put corrections at the very end of the article, which usually aren’t even visible unless the user clicks on a “read more” link. That means that someone could visit TC, read 80% of the article, and have no idea that it’s completely wrong.
Why does Techcrunch have this policy? It seems totally backwards. The NYT is taking advantage of the fact that technology allows us to quickly update info, and Techcrunch is acting like a newspaper, only posting those tiny corrections that no one ever reads.
I have a lot of respect for TC but this policy seriously bothers me and is one of the few things that I would like TC to do differently.
… think that you are visiting a different blog. Techcrunch writers make corrections all the time, as needed, even typos. Quoting the NY Times is not a good move – those guys are so darn arrogant that they would not make corrections no matter what.
Try again.
Transparency is generally a mythical concept that lives in the same neighborhood as “unbiased” – there’s nothing wrong with pursuing either, but it’s much more honest to simply acknowledge the reality of human nature surrounding them. This is, presumably, how Mike has approached it to this point.
Winer lives in his very own neighborhood, where he gets to be both King Friday XIII AND Fred Rogers.
If we could only replicate it for all of humanity. We might be able to finally realize a truly open utopia for all.
Or something.
Mike, great post. Now please post all the private companies you’ve personally invested in and all public companies you own stock in and all will be clear for all. if you have nothing to hide, should be pretty easy to do. if you don’t do it, we’ll all keep wondering if you don’t have some hidden agenda. Looking forward to your feedback.
that’s already done on the about page. no public company stock at all, a handful of private investments.
sorry. I should have paid attention and checked before posting. it’s very clear. keep up the great work.
And what about adding the (public and private) investments disclosure of all the TC writers (and CEO?) in the About page (or any other page)?
This is a blog! good lord..
Michael,
I see how you are working hard to be beyond reproach, but really, I think that you are taking it too far. Why should you divest out of projects you think have merit? It is kind of like a financial advisor not making any investments. How can you remain a reliable source of information if you are not involved in the game? Many of your readers of VC and entrepreneurs. Showing you have a vested interest in the marketplace creates more credibility. So long as you disclose, then you are beyond reproach. Sounds like these guys are getting to you… The nasties! True what Dash Chang said, when you put your head above the crowd, you are going to catch a few tomatoes.
I like you blogs, they are insightful. Keep em coming no matter what you decide in the end.
Cheers,
P
Mike,
1) You don’t stop investing for anything or anyone because no one making comments or spewing venom is going to help your family eat…
2) When your the #1 location where all the big guns go to read, you are not going to be liked. Simple envy.
3) By nature, entrepreneurs that make up the readership of this site all believe their venture is better than the next guy.
4) You own the site, its your business, and it got to this point for a reason. Do not change your WINNING formula for no one. Period.
cripes. he’s not ceasing investing. he’s no longer making investments that are a conflict of interest. anything else is fair game.
Way to go Mike, keep fighting the good fight.
Don’t divest, Mike. You’ve earned the right to invest in any company you see fit. Moreover, you’ve earned the right to capitalize on any success you’ve created, in any way you wish.
You don’t operate TC for the benefit of the peanuts who (not for lack of trying) could never achieve your success. You don’t write for the benefit of companies whose businesses who make a lot of noise about being innovators, only to disappear into mediocrity. And, you don’t operate TC for the sake of the commenters who froth at the mouth because you haven’t failed.
If these were the only ones reading, or the only ones to write about, would you continue TC? I doubt it.
We read because it’s good. Do whatever you want, so long as you keep it good.
If Mike was a staff writer not the blog founder/owner nobody would care. Since he is wildly successful in his career, for the right things, he is being questioned about his disclosure. It’s the price he has to pay for the profession he is in and the investment he plans to make…. He still can divest and spin his investment part into a different company. There still are many such conflicts in wall street, I wonder why nobody cares?
I think divesting may not solve Michael’s problems with regard to this. He will continue to have to make choices on whom to write and many may not agree with what he says. I consider Techcruch a necessary evil, a fitler to whats happenning in the startup world. Mosts posts are good but quite a few make me shake my head (like the one about Mahalo answers with a subsequent one saying that its doing what its supposed to do). So rather just continue the opionated “my road” kindof blog, as it does quite well as it is.
Easy to divest in a market like this one!
Seriously, Cramer and the crew at thestreet (and the old motley fool) made/make a killing charging people to give access to their “investment disclosure”, ahem, porfolio. Granted, its harder to do this with private stocks, but why not turn the tables. If TC is good enough for everyone to try to bring down, you’ve probably got something of value!
I respect this choice, but I would have read your blog either way. Frankly, I read to find out about hot new technologies and trends. Your opinion, biased or not, is not a major concern for me.
Michael,
Why is it that we expect people to be Angels (not in the investor term but in the biblical sense)? Why can’t you have an interest in some of the companies that you cover? Is it really all that different from Newspapers and Magazines? I work in the apparel industry and I can tell you that Magazines cover the brands that Advertise a lot more than the ones that do not. Is there something wrong with it? Maybe. Does it hurt anyone? No really. The same here.
Does it hurt anyone that you have a persona interest in some of the companies that are covered by TechCrunch? I doubt it. The disclosures are always made.
Another thing that your readers need to understand is that the writing on this blog is simply the opinions of the writers of this blog.
No disrespect, but if anyone in this industry (I come from this industry) lets the personal opinion of your writers make up his/her mind without doing their own due diligence, then they do not need to be in this industry. Many of the companies and products that you cover are useful to some people and many are not. That is the nature of trade magazines.
I think that people have come to rely on trade resources like this one as their decision making resource and that is a huge mistake. As a technical person (and one responsible for the infrastructure of a company), it is my responsibility to make my own decision and conclusion about the usefulness of the company or product. I use your resources to weed out all the garbage that is floating out there and then make my own conclusions.
The problem is not necessarily the fact that you are going to get rid of these investments. Your attempt at being transparent and without any “conflicts” will fail miserably. It will fail because if someone wants to blame you for something, they will find a way or a forum to do so regardless of the truth. It is human nature to blame someone for a failure rather than admit it. What are you going to do next time someone asks you if you like DocStoc or Scribd (for example)? Regardless of your answer, you will be put into a situation that could result in conflict. How? You use (again for example) DocStoc’s viewer on your site but you like Scribd better. Conflict!
The truth is that no one should look at you or your editors as angels wearing white and only writing stories that are “fair”. There are 1000s of companies that write iPhone software yet you only covered at most 1% of them. Is that fair? That depends on whether or not you are in the 1% that gets covered or 99% that does not.
I, for one, hope that the writing on this blog does not change because you feel that you need to be more careful about what you say. If that will be the case, I’ll go back to News.com and WebWare.com.
Jim
Mike:
I am with you, most honorable dude!
But I have 2 suggestions (and I’m sorry if I sound rude. Think of me as the fashion expert that helps Anne Hathaway in “The Devil Wears Prada” – tough love):
1) You cannot be a “sissy-man”. This is business, dude. TechCrunch is here to make money, same as every company out there. Unless you are planning for your family of blogs to go Non-Profit, you are a businessman. No mercy, no second-thoughts, no enchanted-pony-making-my-life-happy feeling. We get spit, punched, kicked, bitten, clubbed, stabbed, pinched, forked and licked….as all leaders do. It’s the price we pay. But it is the way we fight back that defines how much people will respect us. Unleash hell, most honorable dude!!!! A business degree is not only FINANCE, ACCOUNTING and MARKETING…you need some Sun Tzu to temper everything.
2) You are doing a great job, but don’t go around expecting a golden foil star from the world every night. Because you will not get it. You have a voice, and the world hears you! You have any idea how many peoples in history wanted to achieve that? Emperors and Kings couldn’t achieve what you have. If you let the world dictate how you have to live your live, you’re as miserable as the rest of us. And you’re not. I know you’re not. You do your job, do it well, and hire a good lawyer to do your dirty work. You have investments? We all do. Transparency? Do you really think it exists? You only provide the Appearance of Transparency. That is all you are required to give. Follow the Law, and destroy anyone in your way. It worked for Larry Ellison, John Chambers, and others. Why not you? Why not now? Why not TechCrunch? Only you have the answer.
Quoting one of my favorite movie lines: “Do you think that’s air you’re breathing?”
Long live and Godspeed, most honorable dude!
Tostada-man.
Best post I’ve read in many a moon.
Mike: this is a good move and will pay off for you big time!
Hear, hear!
Great post. I trust Techcrunch and read most of Techcrunch posts with my studentes.
You know Mike, I think you’re a great guy. We’ve met on a number of occasions and you do have a gruff personality at times, but it’s clear that you’re a good honest guy. Perhaps you don’t recall, but I know of several startup founders who were offered better reviews in exchange for tips, access to product betas, introductions, and so on. I’ve never heard anything factual about money being exchanged, but I’ve certainly heard at least a couple of entrepreneurs admit that they were offered “better reviews” or just more favorable commentary in exchange for access to this product or some tips on that company. Who knows if you ever changed anything about your reporting, but it’s fairly clear to me that on several occasions you made such offers. I’m sure you’re not the only one and certainly not the last.
nope.
Baseless claims
Man up Anonymous Coward
@anonymous coward – you are describing the heart and soul of journalism. Give me exclusive access and I’ll show my appreciation. That goes for any WSJ or NYT reporter, or FOX, CNN etc. If I can get a scoop then I might owe you a favor. That would not mean if you are a scammer that I would overlook it – I wouldn’t. But if you’re legit and trying hard – a bit of extra access goes a long way. There is nothing wrong at all about this approach.
Sounds like libel. I’d be checking that IP address. If there is evidence to these claims, then this person should be forced to present them.
beyond ‘if you want a review, we’ll need access to your product,’ i doubt your accusations have any merit.
Mike,
I think it s a good move. Not that I trust your coverage any less but when someone has the courage to use rules or set up rules to prevent these types of conflicts it means they care about the product.
While some competitors come close to caring about the product they put out I have yet to see any match the care of you Michael Arrington and the TC staff put into this site and product daily.
I think transparency should be good enough, but I can’t argue with your intent and action to make that practice totally unambiguous .
Hopefully others will follow.
Hey Micheal,
You are being too modest but I see a thing that you are doing what your competitors/haters want you to do. And that is to see you down and you are acceeding and giving in to them. I agree with other comments fully. You are not here to run charity here man. You got to earn living and I see no reason whatever you are doing is wrong in any ethical sense. Still to come out public with such a post speaks volumes of your honesty and the value of Techcrunch.
Don’t get dis-heartened who dispise you-those are dunder-heads. Dogs bark and let them.
I have not seen a person so knowleadgeable than you are in this area. So please continue investing in start-ups. They need you more than you require them. Cheers
M Singh
I have to vouch for Mr. Arrington:
I pitched him a silly iPhone App at 5 in the Morning and he spent 10 minutes playing the game and gave it a fair chance.
Think about when you read the NY Times you probably rarely even hear your Governor’s name mentioned but Barack Obama is on every page, same applies with TechCrunch there are 2.5 million people every month on the site. So your Startup although great, might only matter to your industry and not to the 2.5 million who are more concerned with Twitter “Barack Obama.”
Just my 2 cents…
So what do you think — I went easy on Curry because he helped out my struggling company with $10K?
And you’re kind of proving the point in the piece you’re criticizing me for — of course you’re attacking me, because I dared to challenge Twitter, the company that gave you all those free followers who click on your links and read your ads.
If I were you I’d bend over backwards to be fair to people who criticize Twitter, if only to avoid the obvious inference, that you’re in their pocket.
Notice that I didn’t say you are in their pocket, or that your credibility is ruined. Those are very heavy things to say.
One more thing. Someone using your name said that you paid me to link to you in the early days of TechCrunch. Was that you? If so, that’s one of the ugliest things I’ve seen you do. The only reason I ever pointed to TC is because I thought an informed person would want to be aware of your point of view.
And that’s the only reason I’ve ever pointed to anything.
Scripting News is different from UserLand, Mike. Just like your blog is different from your corporation. Even so, as CEO of the company — we never would have included Adam’s feed in the default set if it didn’t belong there. Adam was doing important stuff with RSS in 2001 and 2002, some of which led to the explosion of podcasting in 2004.
I hope you’ll include these comments at the end of your piece. Thanks in advance.
snap!
This is what makes the blog world entertaining. Can of worms in 3, 2….
Dave – So, your software had a default set of content that you thought interesting, one of which even paid you. You are guilty of the thing you were bloviating against, plain and simple. Laughing at you.
Dave – you can’t have it both ways. You took money from someone you promoted and didn’t disclose it. Don’t try to rationalize it – it makes you look like an idiot. Just admit it was wrong, like it’s wrong for IDC, Gartner and other analyst firms to refuse meetings with you until you sign on to one of their services. Payola is payola, and taking money to promote other’s blogs/products/etc. is payola.
Incidentally – I tweeted in favor of your point about the twitter suggested list. It should be random and based on momentum — e.g. people getting lots of new followers or getting @ replies, etc. should get highlighted. Once. Then it’s on to the next guy. The fact that TC was on their just means that @ev thinks people might be interested in it. It’s the wrong model, but doesn’t imply that Mike and Evan worked out some back room deal and deserve to get spanked as a result.
You have lost every single viable shred of credibility.
Period.
Haha, you are caught, have courage to admit it and be the MAN.
Hey man, there’s a Comcast truck outside my house!
Playing dumb, eh?
You went on and on about twitter taking money for prominent placement. Someone (or two) pointed out that you took money from them for the same exact purpose.
And +1 to tech bloggers getting over their own ego. Freaking a, the whole tech scene is gotten reduced to egoware.
I, for one, wish I could just read tech news and not about the politics and egos of tech bloggers.
Me too. All this self-referential navel-gazing makes me queasy. But then again, we did both click on this story, didn’t we?
Dean, is that you? Why am I reading this? LOL! More drama than the bridal shop I work at!
Agreed. For God’s sake, these people need to get over themselves.