

Ask HN: Should TechCrunch Reveal Who Paid For Posts? - jsm386

So TechCrunch has been pretty transparent about this, which is admirable - and as other threads here and there have noted, it was quite clear who the offending intern was. He has since penned an apology http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1103069<p>But, in addition to 'An Appology To Our Readers' should TechCrunch reveal who got their play for pay? As dannyr noted 'It takes 2 to tango. If the intern was punished, the company that bribed him should also be punished.'<p>Edit - Here is another angle: http://siliconangle.com/blog/2010/02/05/was-deleting-all-daniel-brusilovsky’s-posts-an-ftc-blogger-guideline-violation-bruhaha/
======
mronge
I want to add that he wrote a post about my company and product (Rocketbox,
<http://www.getrocketbox.com>), but ABSOLUTELY NO COMPENSATION CHANGED HANDS.
I would think that most of the companies he wrote about are in a similar
situation, where they did nothing wrong but their article has also been
deleted.

It's too bad this happened, I really hope he learns from this experience.

~~~
jacquesm
And that is exactly why this is such a bad thing, basically any company the
guy ever wrote about is now 'under suspicion', which is why TC should clean up
this mess completely.

~~~
SamAtt
To be fair I'm not sure that's possible. I doubt any company that bribed him
is going to admit it and the kid's dishonest so there's no telling how true
what he says is. If Techcrunch posts who they think offered a bribe and are
wrong that's even worse (not to mention being liable)

I think Techcrunch has done all they can do by deleting every post this guy
wrote

~~~
jacquesm
Good point, I hadn't thought of that.

But it just feels weird to have that shadow hang over the rest of those
companies, they obviously didn't do anything wrong.

------
albertsun
This kind of bribe is not technically a crime, it's just a violation of
journalistic ethics. The way I see it, even if the company had offered the
compensation, there's nothing wrong with the company doing everything it can
to get itself coverage and press attention. It's on the journalist to uphold
their own ethical standards.

~~~
jacquesm
When you're approaching a 17 year old I think you have to go easy on them, if
he initiated it it is a completely different story.

Edit: and that's accepting as 'read' that this is s.o.p in the blogosphere
which I am not yet prepared to believe.

------
webwright
I think this is a lot more common than folks realize. Links = SEO win. Links
from important sites = lots more SEO win. With my tiny little blog I (weekly)
get people emailing me offering to pay me small sums for a review or link.

edit: I want to make it clear right here and now that I will write about any
company for a MacBook Air. :-)

------
pplante
I think this is much more common than you might expect. I don't like the idea
of asking for compensation for a favorable mention, however is it all that
different from when a company gives away their wares to someone unsolicited? I
suspect that most people in that position will have their opinion slightly
altered by the act of getting stuff for free. Many bloggers get stuff sent to
them by various companies, some keep the items, others give it away to the
readers.

So is asking to keep the item, or asking for an item all that much different?
I guess its more overt from the author that they are after something, but if
the author still maintains an objective viewpoint what harm is really done?

Can you really trust the product opinion of someone who hasn't put out their
hard earned cash to acquire it? Amazon reviews in my eyes are much more
powerful than something like Consumer Reports. What about you?

~~~
larsr
Consumer Reports has no advertising and they buy everything they review. When
possible, they test items in blind trials. The magazine is also published by a
non-profit. On the other hand, Amazon reviews have been gamed by both
consumers and companies (two examples: Spore, Belkin). You can't be sure the
people writing reviews actually bought the products they are reviewing. In my
eyes Amazon reviews are better than nothing, but they don't come close to the
value of a review by an unbiased party like Consumer Reports.

~~~
pplante
You have a good point regarding CR.

~~~
MotorMouths
Over the past year we've tracked more than 30,000 published car reviews,
including reviews by Consumer Reports as well as 100 other major publications.
There is absolutely a correlation between review scores given to vehicles by
publications that accept advertising and junkets, and those that do not. Make
of that what you will.

------
ErrantX
They didn't bribe him. He asked them for the bribe.

We dont know what happened in the past (one prior incident is mentioned) so
without knowing the details it's hard to even begin to make a judgement. :)

~~~
gte910h
They did bribe him.

There are 2 components for a bribe: One party bringing it up, and one party
paying another.

If the person with the power brings it up, it's called "Asking for a bribe".
If the other party brings it up, it's called "offering a bribe". In either
case, the actual paying the money is called bribery (and the act "accepting a
bribe"). The offering is only attempted bribery.

The companies definitely bribed him, and possibly face criminal culpability if
anyone gives a crap to prosecute them.

~~~
ErrantX
Well I was referring to the incident we have been told about: where the
company did not resort to bribery.

Also I'd point out that really if the way it goes down is "give me a laptop if
you want a [good] review" and they pay up that is actually racketeering :)

~~~
gte910h
I actually believe racketeering has an element of something else illegal, ie,
gambling or violence.

------
pclark
Did the company do anything wrong really though?

~~~
yannis
I would say a definite yes. They did wrong. Having worked for many years in
the Middle East where this sort of thing is endemic, I would say in most cases
it is the Company's corrupt policies that take advantages of people's
weaknesses to achieve their own goals. Pretty much like the KGB coercing
someone to spy for them in the old days, because he was in need of money or
had a weak character. Both parties are wrong.

------
gojomo
Whatever transpired could have been far more subtle than, "gimme macbook, get
story". For example:

"So glad to meet you. So happy to be your friend. Is there any way we can help
each other out as friends? I love to help people out. I can give slots at my
conferences, and I know a lot of bright kids looking for unpaid internships,
and oh by the way I do some writing for TechCrunch too. Do I need any help?
Well, I always want to hear about good story ideas and meet other interesting
people. As my boss Michael Arrington has said, send us scoops and we'll think
fondly of you and be more likely to report on you later! Also my side projects
are hurting for equipment. You know, Company X gave us a projector when our
old one broke. Why, yes, that was the company I wrote about on TC last month."

That is, the behavior could have been on the same continuum of "we know
everybody, we trade favors, the old rules of fastidious disclosure of every
slight-conflict-of-interest can't possibly work in this new world" that
Arrington himself has used to defend his own practices. The companies that
_did_ 'pay' may have thought of it as just cementing an important friendship,
not an explicit quid-pro-quo. Brusilovsky may have gone too far, but in the
ways 17-year olds often do, because they understand only some of the patterns
of their role models, without all the subtleties and limits.

That would explain both Brusilovsky's vague 'mistakes were made' and 'a line
were crossed' phrasing and TC's reluctance to be more specific in allegations
or shaming the favor-traders.

------
shareme
they already did..see update blog post pointer

~~~
antirez
"who paid", the poster wonders if TC should tell you the company that accepted
to pay, not the guy that accepted the gift.

