The TechCrunch (un)debacle


Mike Arrington of TechCrunch has posted on CrunchNotes about his unhappiness over the supposed conflict of interest disclosure issues some seem to have with him (see the buzz at Techmeme).

Now, unless I’ve completely misunderstood what’s going on here, I just don’t get it.

Mike Arrington seems to me to make it abundantly clear when a possible conflict of interest may occur. He’s forever stating when his has a finger in the pie in one of his Crunch Network posts. “I invested…” or “I advised…” or “I something else…” Isn’t that clear enough?

Okay, I see that some folks might think it better that he just not post at all, nor even have a colleague post, but that’s not what TechCrunch and its sister sites are about. They’re about getting the buzz out there. About openly discussing the good and the bad in the new web world. And they’re not afraid to call a spade a spade. More than once, Mike has laid the smack down on a company he’s somehow involved with, and revealed himself to be so. He’s also prepared to give kudos to his potential competition. And to piss off his sponsors by naming them when he doesn’t like what they’re doing. This all looks very transparent to me.

Looks to me like there are a few “industry” types who just want to protect themselves and get some traction for their name in the marketplace. The whole thing is a giant beat-up on the part of those criticising Mike Arrington.

Leave a Reply