

What Exactly Am I Doing Here At Uncrunched? - sahillavingia
http://uncrunched.com/2011/09/25/what-exactly-is-uncrunched/

======
joshes
>I know a lot of you don’t understand why I can’t disclose all conflicts of
interest. The answer is that if I did, not that many people would want to talk
to me in the direct, honest way that I prefer. As a reader you must remain
aware of the inherent bias in everything you read, and form your own opinions
accordingly.

So at first he admits that he cannot disclose all conflicts of interest, then
states that, as readers, his audience must remain aware of his inherent bias.
How are we to remain aware of the nature of these biases if all conflicts are
not disclosed? And, in turn, how are we to trust anything that he writes when
it is known that he has a) biases and conflicts and that b) he will not
disclose all of the?

I understand that everyone has biases and conflicts of interest, that they are
impossible to avoid and that it is highly impractical to disclose each and
every one. But it seems intriguing, to me, to caution us to "be aware" while
also telling us that he will not give us the information require for full
awareness.

~~~
baddox
He's promising to disclose all _financial_ conflicts of interest, which I feel
are the only ones that are vital to disclosing. The idea of disclosing _all_
other conflicts isn't even well-defined. Presumably he'll only ever write
about topics he finds interesting, for one reason or another. Sure, he might
be friends with the founders of Company X, but if he's genuinely interested in
the company he's writing about, does it really matter _why_ he's interested
(if it's not because he invested in them)?

------
trotsky
It takes an impressive amount of hubris to define your lead quality of
"TRANSPARENCY" as disclosing _some_ of your conflicts of interest.

~~~
greyman
From the opposite perspective, he is not less transparent comparing to
mainstream media. They require their writers to not have direct monetary
investment in the things they write about, but other than that, there are more
intricate connections and resulting biases. As I see it, Mike is still more
transparent that his competition, so it is not hubris he showed.

------
mdda
"What Exactly Am I Doing Here At {Hacker News}?". I know that building a
business requires getting the word out. And that understanding the media
channel is an important part of that. But when the media channel personnel
themselves become the story, things are getting waaay too meta.

------
_delirium
Well, this post certainly contained the substance:bluster ratio I've come to
expect from classic TechCrunch.

------
sgentle
How much of Techcrunch was being in the right place at the right time and how
much was Mike Arrington? I've always wondered, and now we get to find out.

~~~
codeslush
I can answer this with a healthy dose of confidence: It was Mike Arrington.
Passion is difficult to argue against. Why on earth he chose Uncrunched is
beyond me, but I'll read along anyway.

------
benologist
Hopefully he stays focused on startups and away from the fluff pieces and
pandering that pretty much defined TechCrunch at the end.

------
presty
I'm curious. How can he start uncrunched? Was AOL that dumb by not putting a
non-compete clause on him?

~~~
duck
Maybe that is why he is wearing an _unpaid blogger_ t-shirt...

------
alnayyir
Flagged.

Reason:

WHO CARES?

This post detracts from this site. It contributes nothing.

