The End of TechCrunch Would Be a Good Thing(tech.fortune.cnn.com)
tech.fortune.cnn.com
The End of TechCrunch Would Be a Good Thing
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/09/07/the-end-of-techcrunch-would-be-good/?iid=SF_F_LN
6 comments
That's exactly what I thought.
I'm not a techcrunch reader (actually, I find it mind-numbingly boring) but I'm not going to listen to competing publications saying how great its dimise would be for the world.
I'm not a techcrunch reader (actually, I find it mind-numbingly boring) but I'm not going to listen to competing publications saying how great its dimise would be for the world.
This is such a superficial comment, so obviously something anyone could say without even reading the article (which I know you did) that I'm compelled to ask you to defend it.
Is it really the case that TechCrunch is so obviously a good thing for startups that the only reason Fortune could be criticizing it is out of professional rivalry?
I found the article compelling and, within the confines of the format of a mainstream media "blog", not at all superficial.
Is it really the case that TechCrunch is so obviously a good thing for startups that the only reason Fortune could be criticizing it is out of professional rivalry?
I found the article compelling and, within the confines of the format of a mainstream media "blog", not at all superficial.
I didn't think much of the article at all. Looks like the HN consensus agrees with me: mine's the top-rated response, and hopeless' comment agreeing with me ranks above yours.
> Is it really the case that TechCrunch is so obviously a good thing for startups that the only reason Fortune could be criticizing it is out of professional rivalry?
Is it really the case that you infer this from my comment? I'm compelled to ask you to list ten other reasons I might not be impressed with the article.
> Is it really the case that TechCrunch is so obviously a good thing for startups that the only reason Fortune could be criticizing it is out of professional rivalry?
Is it really the case that you infer this from my comment? I'm compelled to ask you to list ten other reasons I might not be impressed with the article.
Yes, that's what I inferred from your comment. Because TechCrunch is so on-its-face terrible that a defense was was an interesting idea. But, do you have one? Or did you just an opportunity to snark about Fortune writing something negative about a competitor.
I am very impressed by your ability to harness the "consensus opinion of HN", as an aside. You'll have to teach me that trick sometime. ;)
I am very impressed by your ability to harness the "consensus opinion of HN", as an aside. You'll have to teach me that trick sometime. ;)
[deleted]
And it creates a feedback loop: TechCrunch is the most-reputed site because of its scoops. Startups offer TechCrunch scoops because it's the most-reputed site.
Jumping to the conclusion that the end of TechCrunch is a good thing from that observation is bizarre. You could say the same thing about almost any major site, like Reddit or even Hacker News. HN has a good reputation and large userbase because it has so many awesome links. Why does it get so many awesome links? Because of its good reputation and large userbase. Not exactly a good reason to wish something dead though.
Jumping to the conclusion that the end of TechCrunch is a good thing from that observation is bizarre. You could say the same thing about almost any major site, like Reddit or even Hacker News. HN has a good reputation and large userbase because it has so many awesome links. Why does it get so many awesome links? Because of its good reputation and large userbase. Not exactly a good reason to wish something dead though.
That jumped out at me too.
That feedback loop exists in every type of journalism. The Times has a great deal of influence so they get scoops, those scoops grow their influence.
That feedback loop exists in every type of journalism. The Times has a great deal of influence so they get scoops, those scoops grow their influence.
You've taken a quote from the article out of context and skewed its meaning.
That quote follows a graf in which it's asserted that TechCrunch directly reaches out to startups with news and harasses them for not providing TC with the scoops. For a variety of reasons I find this accusation --- the implication being that you can be punished for not playing quid-pro-quo with TC --- highly credible.
You cannot say the same thing about Reddit or Hacker News.
I would also note that Hacker News is rigged in favor of YC companies, in ways subtle and not. We don't mind, because whatever the sub- and super- rosa things being done to promote YC companies on HN, HN is up front about its bias; it's right there in the name.
That quote follows a graf in which it's asserted that TechCrunch directly reaches out to startups with news and harasses them for not providing TC with the scoops. For a variety of reasons I find this accusation --- the implication being that you can be punished for not playing quid-pro-quo with TC --- highly credible.
You cannot say the same thing about Reddit or Hacker News.
I would also note that Hacker News is rigged in favor of YC companies, in ways subtle and not. We don't mind, because whatever the sub- and super- rosa things being done to promote YC companies on HN, HN is up front about its bias; it's right there in the name.
"HN is up front about its bias; it's right there in the name"
True but it's not immediately obvious to everyone who reads HN and certainly those new to HN which companies are YC and which are not. And assuming someone from traditional media followed a link they most likely wouldn't see the connection and know of the bias.
True but it's not immediately obvious to everyone who reads HN and certainly those new to HN which companies are YC and which are not. And assuming someone from traditional media followed a link they most likely wouldn't see the connection and know of the bias.
and CNN too presumably and most of the regular media with other fields, politics springs to mind
Exactly who would this be good for besides the other publications?
If it's not Techcrunch that you have to cold email then it will be Venturebeat, AllThingsD, Forbes, CNN, etc.
Startups need PR (just like most other companies), so removing TC from the equation will only push that energy elsewhere.
If it's not Techcrunch that you have to cold email then it will be Venturebeat, AllThingsD, Forbes, CNN, etc.
Startups need PR (just like most other companies), so removing TC from the equation will only push that energy elsewhere.
Typical outside-the-bubble-looking-in thinking TechCrunch is some kind of kingmaker in the valley. In reality, the only thing TC truly helps with is fundraising, and that's far from an exclusive.
... so the only thing TC truly helps with is the only thing early stage startups really --- if you put it to them --- actually care about: their runway. Got it. They're not at all in a position of abusable power.
The self-proclaimed "journalist" calls this piece journalism? Uh huh.
Pathetic.
tl;dr version: "We hope TechCrunch fails so our tech site gets more pageviews as a result."