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.
i once heard that everyone’s favorite word to hear is their own name.
It took some courage to make this post. When you are on top, everyone wants to drag you down to their level it seems.
Conflicts of interests are everywhere, that’s why you need transparency and an independent source whenever possible. That’s part of the reason why I use This digital security site.
TechCrunch is doing an awesome job – of course lots of people won’t agree and will try to destroy your reputation, but don’t let that get in your way of doing what you do best. Just keep giving us the awesome information about new startups as you have been doing all these while. We love it.
Michael: Don´t give those statements by Winer a second thought. Don´t get rid of your hard earned assets. Just disclose them (if you feel you have to) on a different page at TC. Your reporting, and it reflects on all of TC, is very good and in line with journalism ethics. Keep going.
It’s about time!
Michael,
In his post, Dave Winer says that you were his lawyer. Is this true? If so, and you didn’t disclose it in your own post, I’d say that goes way beyond anything Winer may have done wrong.
DGF
Wow. My respect for you just shot up Mike. .
Lay off on the lady from India. I actually respect the substance of her comments. It is gross to see people let the racist side of themselves come out in an annonymous setting.
“Have to feed my goats and sweep the floors”
You are really something else.
Have you even read Mike’s post?
Since it is now clear to me that you seem to get your jollies in hurling racist-tinged taunts at me, regardless of what I write, I am not even going to deign to respond in the future.
* Posts that have nothing to do with the article in question deserve no response.
* Posts that disparge other people with nothing more than ad hominem personal attacks deserve no response.
* Posts that cowardly hide behind multiple anonymous aliases while slandering others deserve no response.
* Posts that seek to make fun of other people’s racial background deserve no response.
From now on, I will just ignore all of your posts hiding behind multiple aliases.
You are really pathetic, and deserve pity.
Anjali Sen
“Have to feed my goats and sweep the floors”
You are really something else.
Have you even read Mike’s post?
Since it is now clear to me that you seem to get your jollies in hurling racist-tinged taunts at me, regardless of what I write, I am not even going to deign to respond in the future.
* Posts that have nothing to do with the article in question deserve no response.
* Posts that disparge other people with nothing more than ad hominem personal attacks deserve no response.
* Posts that cowardly hide behind multiple anonymous aliases while slandering others deserve no response.
* Posts that seek to make fun of other people’s racial background deserve no response.
From now on, I will just ignore all of your posts hiding behind multiple aliases.
You are really pathetic, and deserve pity.
Anjali Sen
Well said Anjali. Don’t let these vulgar guys scare you away. We would not want to see you leave. Gentlemen, again, lay off and grow up. This is no way to talk to a lady. I guess your parents didn’t do a good job teaching you.
Momar Shackleford
momarshackleford@yahoo.com
Keep of Anjali you FUCKERS! Why can’t you guys deal with her becoming first? Is is because she is fromIndia? Her posting first might be a marketing strategy but she manages to be on point. But you guys, your only post is to attack. FUCKING FUCKERS!
Thanks for the support Oo.
Wow I’ve noticed the hostility against Anjali. Chill guys, there’s no reason to fight over here. By doing that, we are deeming ourselves the same as whoever we are referring to.
It doesn’t help for us to swear back at Anjali for it will just provoke him/her to swear back. I refer to the guy above me saying “she is very rude and mouthy…” But by saying that, aren’t you rude yourself?
Can we please please stop this? I’m not from India nor the US, but if you still wanna swear back at me, I’m totally fine with that. Maybe you just had a bad day.
@ Batoombe
The problem I have with all of this is that people, mostly if not all, white Americans, attacking not Anjali’s message but rather, they are attacking “Indians.” The gist of peoples’ messages when they reply to Anjali tend to be sophmoric, racist, childish anti-Indian.
Maybe the reason she sounds like a “know it all” is because she actually does know a lot. I find that she makes very good points on a wide variety of topics.
Anjali, don’t worry about haters. They seem to have some anti-Indian and racist feelings, for sure. I like your comments, by the way…
I find some of the remarks very funny– definitely high potency humor. How about Curry Scented Perfume– sophmoric, but a good laugh? About a 4 on a scale of 1-5.
Or how about the joke about speaking Indian dialect when the Indian leaves the room– similar to the concept in the movie Toy Story, where toys come to life when kids leave the room– funny and condescending. This one is a 5.
The one about the 30 year old Indian saying I’m Dirty. 2.5 out of 5. Lacks creativity.
Indian Acccent/Dialect Class. 5.5, if there is such a thing, out of 5. This one really had me crying and laughing.
One disturbing thing about all of this however, is that these jokes come at the expense of a particular ethnic group who, I might say, have a lot of dignity. I think we may be stripping away unfairly at peoples’ dignity.
Perhaps we can get our laughs from something else, like White people jokes. Nah, on second thought, maybe not. White people are boring.
How about homo jokes. Nah, this topic is exhausted. Nothing can be said at this point in time that can be original.
Ok, so it does seem that Indian bashing at the moment has the highest entertainment value.
My name is Ubewe K. Eriye. I am a Nigerian lawyer originally from Lagos. I am a man. I am not Anjali.
I would like to see the hateful, vulgar writers in here be forced to enroll in Indian Accent Class. Read:
“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? “
problem is there isn’t an ‘indian accent’
there are as many accents as there are languages in india, which is why it’s not likely for anyone to see an indian dialect of english become a unified prestige language.
@boatswain,
I don’t see why a popular dialect, like Tabu, can’t one day become more widely accepted as a unified prestige language.
It is already happening in China, where Beijing-accented Manderin is widely becoming the “national dialect.” Even foreigners who learn Manderin are encouraged to learn Beijing Manderin.