It’s not really that big a deal if you break a story and change the details as you get them, provided you believe them to be true at the time. We would rather know the rumor now than the whole story later. That’s far more exciting.

Thanks to John Zhu’s blog for putting this matter in perspective.

Michael, you said that you feel responsible for a $6 billion (brief) swing in valuation when techcrunch broke the google acquisition of youtube several days before the deal was announced. That is pretty substantial. Doctors and lawyers provide opinion for a living. If they provide opinions which are wrongful and negligent, they are held to task. Should techcrunch not be held to the same standard?

Where clicks are currency, process journalism can quickly become as “profit oriented” as dividend-seeking talking heads. We mustn’t forgive half-assed reportage just because there’s a “developing story” disclaimer or an automatic update feature. We all know, as Goering knew, that words and images are powerful. That’s why we must publish only complete, thorough, and supported stories.

Web-based news media sits astride a continuum between two extremes, between the pajama media and the MSM. At least the big boys have trained observers at the scene of the story, feeling the heat and the hate, smelling the fire and the fear.

I don’t see evidence that process journalism is any better than either extreme.

Or am I missing something?

If that happens enough times, readers will jump to alternative outlets and advertisers will go elsewhere.