

Tech Writers In Denial: The Michael Arrington Case Study - petercooper
http://loiclemeur.com/english/2011/09/tech-writers-in-denial-the-michael-arrington-case-study.html

======
untog
I'm sorry, but this doesn't really disprove anything important. All it proves
is that Arrington _can_ give fair coverage to companies he has invested in-
not that he is obliged to.

There _is_ a potential for abuse here, and just because he hasn't done it
before now (perhaps the stakes haven't been high enough?) doesn't mean he
wouldn't in the future.

The comments on the post make a great point- Seesmic has 4210 posts written
about it, while Tweetdeck has only 2580. Seems a little disproportionate, no?
The old "any publicity is good publicity" line might apply here.

------
molecule
tl;dr:

\- michael arrington invested $$$ in author's company

\- author swears that arrington is totally fair tech writer

\- have you read techcrunch? you can't handle the arrington $$$!

