Why We Often Blindside Companies(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Why We Often Blindside Companies
http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/20/why-we-often-blindside-companies/
25 comments
"Second, he seems to have the attitude that he owns the information that he comes across - that the people the story is about don't have the basic right to say it themselves."
Actually, Arrington made it explicitly clear he was fine with them releasing the information themselves, and they had every right to do it. But, he's going to avoid giving those people a heads up in the future if all they're going to do is scoop him on a story by releasing themselves.
As a result, those people who decide to take advantage of the heads up they've been given by him, will no longer get an advance heads up any more. Those people who do let Arrington release his story first, will be given both the opportunity to respond, as well as a heads up that a story will be filed.
And, you aren't publishing rumors if you've been able to sufficiently confirm a story - frequently the one being asked to respond about a story is often the least willing to provide the truth, so getting their response is quite often being polite, rather than really clarifying anything.
With all that said - I think Arrington was being juvenile in his rumor mongering in that article. He could have cut about 20 percent of the speculation and it would have been a better article. This is where bloggers lack of editors results in (significantly) reduced quality of articles.
Actually, Arrington made it explicitly clear he was fine with them releasing the information themselves, and they had every right to do it. But, he's going to avoid giving those people a heads up in the future if all they're going to do is scoop him on a story by releasing themselves.
As a result, those people who decide to take advantage of the heads up they've been given by him, will no longer get an advance heads up any more. Those people who do let Arrington release his story first, will be given both the opportunity to respond, as well as a heads up that a story will be filed.
And, you aren't publishing rumors if you've been able to sufficiently confirm a story - frequently the one being asked to respond about a story is often the least willing to provide the truth, so getting their response is quite often being polite, rather than really clarifying anything.
With all that said - I think Arrington was being juvenile in his rumor mongering in that article. He could have cut about 20 percent of the speculation and it would have been a better article. This is where bloggers lack of editors results in (significantly) reduced quality of articles.
Arrington said he was fine with it, but the tone and the content of his post says to me, "See? This is what you get." Referring to calling the people ahead of time as giving them a "heads up" is part of why I find his attitude perverse. I consider that part of basic reporting.
If anyone has a skeleton the first action is to announce it yourself so that MA assholes do not get any power..
Jesus christ what an asshole. He got scooped by his source so he drags her through the mud. I won't air her dirty laundry, but please speculate and spread rumor amongst yourselves.
Agreed. This really was the "final straw" for me in regards to respecting Techcrunch. You can't claim to exist as a resource for startups when your founder does something like this. I'll try to avoid them as best I can from now on, not that it means much.
I was fine with Techcrunch's increased coverage on BigCos and decreased coverage on startups -- they need to pay the bills, and juicy popular companies get more views than tiny startups. But this is too far. I never assumed that Techcrunch was a strong resource for entrepreneurs, but now they'll throw them under the bus for a blog post.
I was fine with Techcrunch's increased coverage on BigCos and decreased coverage on startups -- they need to pay the bills, and juicy popular companies get more views than tiny startups. But this is too far. I never assumed that Techcrunch was a strong resource for entrepreneurs, but now they'll throw them under the bus for a blog post.
Yeah I don't really get that either. It seems like it was unnecessary to even write this blog post or include any examples if you really had to say this publicly. This seems like a great candidate for an office email.
Right now I'm picturing the worst about someone without details so my brain is just making up things that are probably much worse than anything that actually happened. I didn't much control over that instinct either which is the most annoying part.
Right now I'm picturing the worst about someone without details so my brain is just making up things that are probably much worse than anything that actually happened. I didn't much control over that instinct either which is the most annoying part.
Just wait for his soon-to-be-written "AOL is making us be jerks!" complaint/excuse story.
LOL. I ama journalist. Arrington is a jackass. I've blindsided a company or two in my day but you ALWAYS call first. Blindsiding happens AFTER they say "no comment." It's not really blindsiding then, I know.
But yeah, Arrington isn't really much of a journalist in my opinion. Just a guy who wants power over people. Does he actually claim not to be a journalist? I mean, he's attempting to perform acts of journalism, so I would assume his claiming not to be a journalist is some sort of dodge so people can't call him an unethical journalist.
But if it walks like a duck.....
But yeah, Arrington isn't really much of a journalist in my opinion. Just a guy who wants power over people. Does he actually claim not to be a journalist? I mean, he's attempting to perform acts of journalism, so I would assume his claiming not to be a journalist is some sort of dodge so people can't call him an unethical journalist.
But if it walks like a duck.....
Does he actually claim not to be a journalist?
Yes.
Yes.
Did he explicitly ask Fake to hold off on the news, and to allow him to break the story? If a journalist called me and interviewed me, I doubt I'd even think about holding back what is a story to them unless they explicitly asked me to.
[deleted]
How is this post of any value to the reader? It's pure gossip. I don't care about him getting scooped by his own source, and I don't care that she did it twice. I also don't care why she left a previous company. And I don't care that she's now on his shit-list.
Since when do we bitch about a personal gripe with somebody to an entire internet readership audience? That's expected behaviour if you're 14 and posting on facebook, but this is supposed to be a respectful (and respected) news site. Or isn't it?
Since when do we bitch about a personal gripe with somebody to an entire internet readership audience? That's expected behaviour if you're 14 and posting on facebook, but this is supposed to be a respectful (and respected) news site. Or isn't it?
Arrington doesn't claim to be a journalist, but Sarah Lacy, who backed up this sentiment on Twitter, should know better.
You call sources to get the story right and to protect yourself against libel, not out of kindness.
You call sources to get the story right and to protect yourself against libel, not out of kindness.
After recently reading "Tonight we dine in Hell," it is interesting to juxtapose this article with that one with regard to "controlling the narrative." I'm not so sure I have the same sympathy for TC against the "PR Machine" as I did before this post. Power corrupts.
Context: (http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/17/we-will-fight-in-the-shade/)
Context: (http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/17/we-will-fight-in-the-shade/)
Despite seeing fewer and fewer Arrington-penned articles on TechCrunch, the site continues serve its near-singular purpose as the main channel on which we can catch "The Arrington Show" live in all its passive-aggresive (and aggressive-aggressive) glory.
Soap opera for nerds.
Soap opera for nerds.
What a ridiculous article - boils down to "how dare someone release their news themselves and not let us break their story".
At least he has the decency to admit that pageviews are more important to him than integrity.
Wow....there is a lot of hate on this thread for Arrington. While I don't share in that sentiment, it does come across as 'douchey' of him to be upset that the source wants to announce their own news themselves.
Talk about unnecessary politics in a day and age when I can fire off a blog post or a tweet, I should run it by Mike first to see if he wanted to break it ?
With all due respect, that's wrong.
I understand Michael's desire to always be breaking cutting-edge news (after all, that's how he makes a living), but this is kinda ridiculous.
Talk about unnecessary politics in a day and age when I can fire off a blog post or a tweet, I should run it by Mike first to see if he wanted to break it ?
With all due respect, that's wrong.
I understand Michael's desire to always be breaking cutting-edge news (after all, that's how he makes a living), but this is kinda ridiculous.
Can someone post a tldr. I'd prefer to avoid giving techcrunch the pageview if possible.
tl;dr: Arrington discusses how he (and others who break news) usually first contact the subject of a news piece before publishing the story in order to inform them, get their side, or whatever else. Arrington says he apologized to the CEO of AdMeld for not doing that earlier this month. He then says that some CEOs he just does not trust, however, and will thus forgo the call. He then mentions Caterina Fake (of Hunch) as an example and proceeds to detail how he had the scoop on her departure from Hunch but refused to post it without contacting her first because of their pre-existing relationship. He then mentions that on two separate occasions he tried to warn Caterina of an impending news story only for her to then blog about the story herself and out-scoop him. He then calls her a liar about the entire affair and says he still will not explain what really happened because it's not his business. But then says that with Caterina, and others that he no longer trusts, he will break news stories on them without warning.
Edit: Initially mistakenly worded the part about the CEO of AdMeld. Corrected with thanks to the comment below pointing out the mistake.
Edit: Initially mistakenly worded the part about the CEO of AdMeld. Corrected with thanks to the comment below pointing out the mistake.
He did not contact the CEO of AdMeld first. It sounds like Arrington's default policy is to not call first.
Arrington sounds like a real treat.
First, if you're reporting on the acquisition of a company and you don't bother to talk to the people involved, then you're publishing rumors. If you're worried about being "scooped" by an official press release, then just have everything ready to go before the calls. The story they posted about the acquisition wasn't long. They could have easily had held space for official responses, and then published once they got them - even if that response would just be "so-and-so declined to comment." Not doing so is, in my opinion, sloppy reporting.
Second, he seems to have the attitude that he owns the information that he comes across - that the people the story is about don't have the basic right to say it themselves. Who seriously expects people to look out for the best interest of news outlets instead of themselves? What kind of a bizarre gentlemen's agreement does he think is in place? "Oh, TC is going to run a story on me. I guess I'll have to wait until they publish before I say anything so I don't ruin their scoop." For some people, a blog post is an equivalent to a press release. Perhaps he should treat it as such.