
TechCrunch is a bully  - asanwal
http://www.lanewood.me/post/30435294794/techcrunch-is-a-bully
======
steve8918
I have no real interest in either side of this story, and Techcrunch isn't
really on my rolodex of sites to read from. That being said, I don't think the
original Techcrunch article was being a bully at all.

The fact that she allegedly has gotten away with the simplest of social
engineering tactics against a group that most likely thinks of themselves as
_at least_ smarter than average, was fairly interesting to me. It shows how
easy and effective social engineering can be, even by someone as young as
Shirley Hofnstein.

All the author appears to write is that they don't like the fact that
Techcrunch wrote an article about their friend. It appears that the author of
the above article doesn't even defend Shirley Hornstein, which leads me to
believe that she was in fact guilty of these acts of social engineering.

If that's the case, then it seems like a decent bit of journalism to me. Do I
think it's a huge crime? No, it's not like she pulled off a Madoff scam. But
was it an interesting article? Yes, and it really points to the fact that we
all need to keep on our toes.

~~~
samstave
While I agree with your not being on a side - my personal opinion is this:

Techcrunch was founded and run by a douchebag - thus douchebaggery is in its
DNA.

~~~
nameuserc
Unfortunately this is true. I'm not sure all that many people know where the
founder came from, i.e., the type of stuff he was doing before TechCrunch, and
the company he worked for - a company responsible for a very large portion of
some of the purest douchbaggery to be found anywhere on the web. The lowest of
the low. They do some very dirty work. I'd even guess there are "innocent"
people working at TC who do not know the history.

I wanted to see TC as some sort of redemption for this guy, a stepping away
from the sort of douchebaggery he was doing previously. But, after watching TC
for a number of years, it clearly was a progression to an even more potent
form of sleaze. If people are using underhanded tactics with TC, then I can
only conclude that they've succeeded in attracting the very same type of
people which they are themselves (excluding anyone working there who is naive
and unaware).

~~~
chacham15
Im sorry, but this is ridiculously unfair. Dont judge a company by what just
one person in it has done. Everyone has made mistakes. Let he who is without
sin cast the first stone.

~~~
jlgreco
That phrase _really_ is not universalizable at all. Where would we all be if
nobody called out anybody else for anything?

Consider me voluntarily opted out from that nonsense. _Please_ call me on my
crap, you do not have to be perfect yourself to do so.

------
ChuckMcM
I'd like your leave to go a bit meta here, hope you don't mind.

What I find interesting about this exchange (the original TC article and
Lanewood's response) is the message "don't do this because it hurts."

Yes, it does. But my experience is that pain is a signal you listen to, it's
one of those things that says "stop doing what you are doing." It is a
corrective force.

Making exaggerated claims about your influence or connections or importance to
folks is wrong. It is wrong because it abuses the trust the other person put
into the person lying, which then causes great hurt and shame when they
realize they have been "duped" or "fooled" or "lied to". Calling someone on
it, is hurtful too, but its important to do as well. That pain going the other
way is a signal to moderate behavior, or change it.

So this conversation is "Shirley is a liar" / "You shouldn't do that because
it hurts her feelings" seems to want to shut down a force working for good,
which is better behavior.

I know I would love it if people were more honest about themselves, but I also
know that some folks have convinced themselves that their own self worth is
tied up in how influential they perceive themselves to be. Thus exaggerating
that influence is like make-up, or fancy bling, its a crutch to prop up their
self image.

I think there is pain on both sides of this conversation, at least a couple of
kilo-snarks. If it helps someone to become a better person, its beneficial.
But if they don't have the mental tools to process it they can (and sometimes
do) become simply depressed by it. I don't think either party in this
conversation represented themselves particularly well. If Shirley is young now
would be a good time to come to grips with the way she presents herself. TC
should work at doing better at informing rather than blaming (it did read like
it came right out of Valleywag). Continuing acting this way on both parties
will only hurt them going forward.

~~~
famousactress
So, first off I don't give a fuck about the story, or the counter story, or
people who photoshop themselves with celebrities, or people who care about
whether people really know celebrities, or techcrunch.

That said, I wanted to contrast the HN reaction to this story with the HN
reaction to the kid who slept at AOL. I figure in both cases we're talking
about someone who did something deceptive and wrong in the supposed name of
entrepreneurial hustle. The AOL kid actually went as far as breaking the law,
while it's not clear this girl did at all.

In the AOL kid's article you wrote:

 _"However for a potential investor this is a great demonstration of how
committed someone is to their idea, and their passion. I don't doubt for a
moment that Eric will be successful at what ever he sets out to do, you can't
buy that kind of focus."_

( <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4019755> )

Then went on to at least play devil's advocate to the commenter who called it
an 'ethical failure'.

Honestly not trying to call you hypocritical here.. I'm genuinely curious what
gives the AOL kid 'moxie' while the girl that plays up her relationships with
folks is less admirable.

~~~
ChuckMcM
That is a completely fair point. What is the difference?

I see it as 'who is being scammed' and what is the harm done.

Now in the kid's case he did use AOL resources which, had he not, they would
have been used on AOL employees (thinking mostly food here, the
energy/light/water usage is probably flat rate like it is in my facilities).
He did not do monetary damage to AOL, nor reputational damage (he didn't
represent his work as being part of AOL or represent himself as an AOL
representative to potential partners or investors).

In Shirley's case she allegedly convinced some people she would be able to
connect them with potential investors or advisers when in fact she could not.
For a startup founder that can make them think there is some additional
outreach going on that isn't. If the founder feels like outreach is critical
to the startups ability to succeed and they find they have squandered time,
their most precious resource, with this person who couldn't deliver then I
could see them feel betrayed. If you hire (and pay) a PR firm to get your
message out and they say they can get you into the New York Times or Inc or
whatever and it turns out they can't and never could, you may be inclined to
not pay them (and possibly sue them if you had already paid them).

So one is 'freeloading' (the kids case) and one is fraud (Shirley's case). I
see it as the difference between saying you have a million dollars in your
checking account when you don't, versus writing a check for a million dollars
when you don't have it. Shopping yourself into photos feels more like the
latter to me, but unless you're actually paying for her services your not
financially harmed.

I think asking the hypocrisy question is completely valid. Where does this
behavior cross the line from 'white lie' into 'fraud'?

In my post I really was commenting on people trying suppress conversation that
is painful through peer pressure. Conflict avoidance is a huge problem in
society, it lets problems grow into bigger problems. I was not particularly
passing judgement on Shirley's actions, although in all honestly when I read
the TC article I did feel sympathy for the folks who were misled, and I didn't
feel nearly as much angst for the AOL folks who didn't realize the guy was
living in their office.

The kid's motivations were pretty clear, do you happen to have any insights
into Shirleys? I'll admit I accepted the implication that she does this just
to prop up her own self image, but recognize that conclusion isn't completely
supported by what we know. Motive does play a huge part in how the two stories
get positioned.

(This comes back to my comment in that previous thread : _When evaluating a
series of events involving grey areas its always useful to try to understand
the principles that are in play. Different sets of principles would lead you
down two different paths._ )

~~~
famousactress
Wildly lucid and I imagine if I'd reflected on the topic for longer this line
of thinking may have occurred to me. I really appreciate you spelling out your
thought process for both.

~~~
BrainScraps
This comment branch is proof that all is not lost on HN. Thanks for being
'Good Guy Gregs' in the comments.

<http://www.quickmeme.com/Good-Guy-Greg-/>

------
jamiequint
I'm pretty sure if you misrepresent yourself that blatantly time and time
again you deserve what is coming to you.

 _"she has the top media company in the tech industry trying to take her
down."_

Oh please, she blatantly lied many times about many things to high profile
people. That is a story and its going to get written about by _someone_
whether its Techcrunch or someone else.

~~~
unreal37
What am I missing? What do you know that you're not saying? I can't find
anything in the original TC article that said "she blatantly lied many times
about many things to high profile people".

Who did she lie to? What was the lie? Was it a lie or just an exaggeration?

The TC article mentions Founders Fund a bunch, and not much else.

~~~
herval
So, photoshopping yourself into pictures with _several different people_ is
"an exaggeration" to you?

~~~
bpatrianakos
That's the thing! This article is incredibly shallow and manipulative. I have
no doubt this girl lied about being affiliated with Founders Fund but that's
all the article says. The article never says that the purpose of the
photoshopped photos was to mislead. It just puts them out there and tempts you
to draw your own conclusion from the biased context. People Photoshop
themselves next famous people. All the time. It's all in good fun. I'm not
saying she's innocent but what I am saying is that this article was lazy and
really does belong on TMZ.

I'll sum up the article:

"This random girl lied about being affiliated with Founders Fund but it's
unclear who she lied to exactly. We're going to beat this horse to death and
here's some Photoshopped photos of her with famous people that could be
innocent but we're not real journalists here so we'll make an implication and
let you draw your own conclusion thus getting us off the hook for doing any
real journalism"

That's how that piece should have read. Whether she's guilty or not this
article is a steaming pile. I wonder if this was ordered by Founders Fund
itself. (See what I did there? I asked the question and now you get to go all
conspiracy theory with that while I get to say I never made that accusation...
Kind of like this article)

------
karpathy
Clearly there is a gradient of people and how much misinformation they spread
around themselves. Few never lie, some will occasionally slip a word here and
there to exaggerate a truth, some will lie from time to time about small
things, and then waaaaaay on the other side of this gradient there is
photoshopping yourself into pictures with famous public figures and similar
tactics described in the article. Of course we are not all saints, but based
on the outcry most people (myself included) agree that there is a line that
was crossed here.

I appreciated the article as an interesting case study.

------
deniszgonjanin
America has always been a land where you could fail, then pick yourself up.
You could move west in search of a new beginning and a new identity. You could
go bankrupt, then start over, and eventually fail your way to success and a
better life. There is no longer a place to hide or run away to. There is no
way to re-invent yourself and start over. The foolish crimes of our youths are
now a permanent part of who we are. For the rest of our lives and likely
eternity.

This is the sad side of the products we are helping to create as engineers at
Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc...

~~~
kristianc
I'm not sure what point you're making. If it's that Facebook, Google, Twitter
are making it harder for confidence tricksters to move on and repeat their
lies when they've been rumbled - I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

~~~
jeffool
I think the point isn't that it's harder for grifters, but that it's harder
for everyone. Even people who genuinely think they're playing the game, and
have made statements too far, lies, or even genuine mistakes. Before, they
could say "Wow, I guess I was wrong. I've learned my lesson." and try to be
better. Now, they're branded, and must suffer, forever.

It's a point I personally know all too well. I was fired from a journalism job
a year ago; my boss accused me of looking at pornography at work. (I argue
that "looked at porn" and "looked at 4chan", are vastly different, and intent
is an important factor. I didn't think I was doing anything wrong.) I'm 31,
and in this market, as someone who worked my way into a "producer" role
without a degree? It's an employer's market. Even after a year of job hunting,
people hear that story, and the conversation goes silent. There's plenty of
people they can choose from with no discernable "problems" in their past.

It seems my choices are "go into marketing, despite how you feel about hocking
clients you hate", or "work two mediocre jobs of low wage". One drove me
crazy, two isn't great.

And I'm not trying to make a sob story out of this; I went to a website my
employer didn't like. I'm not going to lie about that, I learned a lesson is
all. I'm just trying to drive the point home. If you make a single "mistake,"
that may be all it takes.

------
gojomo
I'm no TC fan, but it was a fair subject and story.

That such deceptive operators can show up anywhere (and especially in a
young/dynamic community) is important to know, and it can only be vividly
demonstrated with tangible and current examples.

And specifically, enough people were affected by this person's claims, leaving
enough of a reportable trail, that a story warning others and documenting the
_modus operandi_ could be true, well-sourced, interesting, and useful for TC's
readership.

------
nateberkopec
Listen, this just proves that TC _is_ a gossip rag, but, you're going to
defend someone who is literally Photoshopping themselves into photos with
celebrities and claiming that they're real?

Uhh.

~~~
learc83
If you'll notice the article never mentioned any context for the pictures,
just kind of put them out there for the reader to draw conclusions.

Was it a joke between friends, or an actual attempt to defraud people. Who
knows? The article certainly didn't offer any evidence either way.

------
eevilspock
_"Most of us are not as big of a deal that we convey that we are. 99% of the
industry is guilty."_

    
    
      Bullfuckingshit.
    
      Speak for yourself.
    
      Thou protests too much.
    

_"I’ll admit it. But so have you."_

    
    
      Again, fuck you speak for yourself.
    
      A bit self-serving, aren't we?
    
      And I can't stand TechCrunch.

------
citricsquid
The thing I don't get about the techcrunch article is in the comments Alexia
Tsotsis wrote:

> This is the story that no one was writing. Amazing work Anthony Ha.

is his life in danger? is she some high power person that can destroy Anthony
Ha's career? No... she's a person that lies...

~~~
dotBen
I don't understand why a co-editor of TechCrunch would ever write _"this is
the story that no one was writing"_. Er, if you were wanting someone to write
it, why didn't you commission them to write it already? That's surely your
job!?!

------
mkohlmyr
Enough people still read TC to where it can be considered a bully? I'm being
completely serious. It's been a long time since I paid attention to anything
that was written on TechCrunch and it's been even longer since the thing I
paid attention to was anything remotely sensible or interesting.

I actively avoid visiting links to TechCrunch. Because the people who work
there are a poor excuses for journalists - which is why it will forever be to
my mind 'just a blog'.

~~~
rhizome
TC's world is people who have to look up what "BBS" means every time it comes
up, both employees and readers.

------
tomasien
I seriously am considering swearing off TechCrunch because of this article.
True or not, their hegemony gives them so much power, and to see it foolishly
used in this way was disturbing.

The people she was claiming to know are big boys/girls. This should have been
handled socially in the valley.

~~~
rhizome
As someone who stopped reading them years ago, let me tell you an
incontrovertible fact of the Internet: if it's worth reading, it will show up
in every aggregator you still pay attention to, three times on the front page
of HN if necessary. Propagation is a cue for importance, which is why TC (and
RWW, and...) spend so much effort manually posting these stories all over the
place themselves. They're faking it, too.

~~~
shurane
But there are so many things that are propagated that aren't important.
Consistently negative world news, for starters.

~~~
rhizome
While your second sentence is a non-sequitur and a pretty transparent dig
besides, your first sentence is partly covered by "they're faking it." PR
agencies, Digg-like upvote groups, all of them are corrupt attacks on organic
popularity.

------
softbuilder
>It’s like reading a middle school girl’s diary.

Exactly this. There was no point to the story. Sure, I'll buy that the lady is
a headcase/creeper or whatever. But that's it? No real crimes detailed or list
of people screwed over? It was just a finger-pointing "hate this person right
here" piece.

Cyberbullying doesn't just happen to kids.

~~~
mcantelon
Expose fraud isn't bullying. She's a grown woman who chose to risk her
reputation by playing a con game. Most con artists get away with it: she
didn't. Her being exposed will deter other would-be parasites. Good.

~~~
softbuilder
If there was a real exposé here, I might agree. There would be more specifics,
statements from victims and prosecutors, etc.. This article lacked any purpose
aside from pure humiliation. Maybe this lady is so awful that she deserves
that, but the case wasn't made. What if she's mentally ill?

~~~
mcantelon
Well, they included a court document and any small startups thinking of
pushing consulting money to her likely won't now, so mission accomplished.

>What if she's mentally ill?

Not all dishonest people are mentally ill.

------
error54
The article does seem a little bullying. I mean, what harm has she really done
other than lie (which every business person has done since the beginning
time). I could see if she caused some startup to go under or cost some company
millions of dollars but to quote the author, "Shirley Hornstein has never done
anything bad to me. Except, y’know, lie."

It really seems like a bunch of people got together one night and came to the
conclusion that they don't like this woman and one those people said "Hey, I'm
a TC writer. I can write an article about all this Silicon Valley phoney and
we can all have a laugh about it tomorrow!" Do I agree Shirley Hornstein told
some blatant lies? Yes. Do I think that these falsehoods deserve a front page
article? No.

Besides, "Everyone lies" -House

~~~
edm4r
Quoting the article:

"Sometimes it was mostly just embarrassing, in other cases reputations or
deals had been affected by the deception."

However, they don't show what deals and reputations had been affected.

------
patrickod
A calling out for really unacceptable behaviour? Yes. Bullying? Far from it in
my eyes. If you consistently misrepresent yourself and promise people things
you are not capable of achieving then you deserve to be called out on it.

------
leoh
Yes, TC is a bully. Not only that, Arrington is a major con artist. Half the
people in the valley these days are con artists. It's like this girl was the
scape goat for this overwhelming shitstorm of lies that has grown the past few
years. Pathetic.

------
greghinch
Wow this whole exchange depresses the hell out of me. Can't we just build cool
shit and leave this kind of lame drama for other industries?

------
philwelch
> So shame on TechCrunch for publishing something that belongs on TMZ.

TechCrunch _is_ TMZ for Silicon Valley.

------
crag
I know this might come as a surprise to some.. but no one outside the valley
cares. :)

In fact, I'd bet very few _inside_ the valley care.

------
freditup
Both this article and the one it discussed seemed to go right over my head.
The only impression I could get is that there is a small faction of tech
related people who have formed their own hollywoodish faction and act like it
too. Anyone care to take a go at explaining to me what really happened and why
it matters?

------
richardjordan
I thought the same thing when reading that article. Here was someone I've
never heard of - and I'm pretty active at getting around the startup world;
someone who seems to have got herself into a web of lies which probably
started off with some exaggerations.

Let's stipulate to the fact that it's not okay to lie about yourself to get a
gig, even if you think it's harmless and you'll make up for it in work. I
thought it was right that the Yahoo! CEO was fired for that stuff. I've never
lied on a resume, never would.

But what we have here is a nobody, who's probably got a bit of a problem. That
problem is exacerbated by the bullshit celebrity culture TechCrunch tries to
build around our industry. It's the bullshit attitude displayed by a ton of
the current incubator ducklings, who follow their angels around in awe like
momma duck, while convincing themselves they're starring the fantasy version
of Silicon Valley they saw in the Social Network. TechCrunch is among the
worst offenders creating this problem.

If we're going to be honest about it, there are plenty of folks - and we don't
need to get ugly and name names but if you're around the industry you bump
into these people - who call themselves Tech Journalists who are little more
than exaggerators, fabricators and bullshit artists who have NEVER CREATED
ANYTHING OF VALUE themselves, never created a job, never taken the risk. Just
the role of the critic. Never the man in the arena. So it's a bit rich them
all ganging up on this unfortunate person who tied herself up in knots and
exaggerations leading to great embarrassment.

(Try going to any event full of tech journalists from these blogs and wait
till they get a bit drunk and listen to the boasts and stories and thoroughly
inappropriate behavior.)

But I have NO sympathy for any startup that works with someone without doing
the most basic of background checks which would immediately expose lies and
exaggerations. The valley is full of people who overstate things and word gets
around pretty quickly. You can often see the smoke and smell the charcoal from
burning bridges from a long distance, and way after the fact. No public
interest is served by tarring and feathering a nobody for entertainment
purposes under the guise of investigative journalism.

The way this story is written you'd think they'd uncovered Carlos the Jackal,
cracked a terrorist ring, discovered the whereabouts of Nazi war criminals. It
is pathetic and mean spirited.

I keep hoping TechCrunch will recapture what once made it a must-read, but I'm
increasingly saddened by the reality that it won't happen. As I've posted
elsewhere, it's a serious thing that we do here in Silicon Valley, building
companies, taking risks. We often spend large sums of other people's money. We
commit our lives and those of our loved ones to the endeavor. Sure we can have
fun. But we cannot run the industry like a school yard and we deserve more
from our media outlets than mean-spirited gossip.

~~~
uid
pretty funny to read your elitis tirade there considering that a lot of these
blogs are also startups with founders, CEO's, employees, investors etc.

~~~
richardjordan
Not sure what's elitist about getting annoyed at a self-appointed elite of
tech journalists for a decline in standards - and also the use of a leading
industry publication to attack an individual. Unless you mean elitist in the
same way I want an elite pilot flying my plane and an elite surgeon doing my
operation. Then, well yeah...

Tirade? Fair enough. Got a bit carried away. Why not? This stuff pisses me
off. It's ridiculous that industry coverage has fallen towards the TMZ level
over the last few years. I know for some reason I don't understand Arrington
isn't popular around here, but when he ran TechCrunch it was must read stuff.
Scoops were mostly real, and of some value. He personally wrote well, and held
others to the same standard. Even post acquisition TC still puts on great
events, and there's a lot to like. That's why it's so frustrating.

Startups? Not really, the specific blog in question isn't a startup - it was
sold to a large corporation and its current focus is page views at any cost.

There's still good writing out there. There are tech journalists who I eagerly
read everything they write, because it's well written and thought out. There
are probably some I don't read because the style is not for me, but I'm sure
they're great. However, there is also a parasitic element, feeding off the
energy of the startups they purport to cover, having little appreciation of
much of what startups do, or even the underlying technology they're writing
about.

------
Uchikoma
I'm burning my karma with this, but I appreciate this article. As a startup
I'd like to be warned, probably people wasted time with this girl, time to
market, time to VCs, time to get there startup somewhere b/c they believed
this girl would help them when indeed she didn't. Could they have done better
due dilligence? Perhaps. Would others tell how they got burned? Perhaps. But I
don't follow the thinking that everything other people do to you is your fault
b/c you should have known better. The wrongdoer is the victim stuff. And it's
astonishing how HN reacts to guys that fake startups, connections, products
compared to this girl that is faking her way around. We'll see if there is
coming more.

------
mistercow
Wow, the Hollywood-ness implied by this article about the tech world...
this... is it really like this out there now? Is this nauseous feeling I have
right now the way serious but small filmmakers feel about the entertainment
industry?

------
kenster07
Most programmers are hard-working, relatively honest people. It must be
difficult for them to watch people like Shirley pass them on the career
ladder.

It's one thing to have people skills, and use it as a lever to add benefit and
value to this world. The Shirley's of this world deserve zero sympathy.

That being said, the TechCrunch article wasn't as articulate as it should have
been. At the very least, context should have been provided for these pictures.

------
fourstar
If everyone ignored them, they'd go away.

------
edm4r
"The opposite of success isn't failure; it is name-dropping" \- Nassim Taleb

------
homosaur
The moral of this blog post seems to be that most tech companies' execs are
all as big of tools as this gal.

Okay.

So I'm supposed to somehow trust someone's company that's trying to be some
fake Silicon Valley star effer? I dunno man. Maybe she has the best social
kitten mashup ever but I can't imagine if I had a million dollars to invest
that I'd let this one anywhere near it.

------
mikescar
TechCrunch is just a joke.

I would never go there outside of HN posts, but it's really amusing to see how
self-important a bunch of hipster bloggers can be when writing about people
doing actual work.

The puff pieces that they run as the majority of what is published, those are
pretty funny. It's the slag pieces that are most entertaining.

------
DanielOcean
I think it's good journalism. That's their job, to get to the bottom of things
and I think he did a great job.

------
OoTheNigerian
The easiest antidote to an article such as this is to out yourself. If
_everyone_ knew this was coming out, she most probably knew.

The advantage of her outing herself would be that it would be far less
damaging and considering people love those that seek a sort of penance,
something positive would have come out of her outing post.

It is not too late though. She should write, ask for forgiveness, NOT blame
TechCrunch for her woes and move on. Everyone loves a comeback stor so this
might end up having a positive outcome if told well.

Ironically, I did not read the post the first time I came across it. This post
brought far more attention than the original one.

------
xenen
Exaggerating your connections to others to try and hustle favors and more
connections is one thing, but photoshopping yourself into photos with
celebrities is pretty damn creepy no matter how you look at it.

------
mark_l_watson
I have called TechCrunch "assholes" twice on tweets in the last week or so
(because I hate following a link to TC on my iPad and having to cancel the
annoying nag popup to install their app; last time I could not get through to
the article because of constant redirects back to the nag popup. Yuck.)

So, I might be a little prejudiced against TC right now, but even with that, I
think the original article about Shirley Hofnstein was really mean spirited.

In any case, I usually do my web browsing on my iPad so I am not reading
TechCrunch anymore anyway.

------
se85
Come on people, she is a con artist! She deserved every last bit of it, and
then some.

If only more con artists got destroyed like this in public, the world would be
a better place for sure.

------
mindcrime
_And she has the top media company in the tech industry trying to take her
down._

TechCrunch isn't anything close to a "top media company." TC is a shitty blog
run by a bunch of amateurs who should be lucky enough to be referred to as
"wannabe journalists." TC exists to whore for page impressions and ad clicks,
nothing more. The best thing to do is pretend they don't exist... quit reading
TC, quit sending them "news", quit responding to their bullshit, etc.

~~~
corin_
I guess it depends whether you define "top media company" as top in quality of
top in readership/influence/etc. I've on idea about stats but it wouldn't
surprise me if TC was at the very top for its niche on the latter.

~~~
mindcrime
_I guess it depends whether you define "top media company" as top in quality
of top in readership/influence/etc._

Here, I'm referring more to quality / journalistic standards / ethics / etc,
than readership. And even in terms of readership, I doubt TC can touch actual
mainstream media outlets in terms of eyeballs.

------
nfriedly
Techcrunch dropped from one of my favorite sites to one that I actively avoid
more than a year ago due to a number of the shenanigans they've pulled. I make
special exceptions if someone I know is covered there, but other than that I
basically avoid the site like the plague.

------
richieh
[http://betabeat.com/2012/08/shirley-hornstein-shirls-
credit-...](http://betabeat.com/2012/08/shirley-hornstein-shirls-credit-card-
fraud-records/)

------
gadders
Leaving aside all the bruised egos of people that fell for her schtick, I'm
well impressed with her photoshopping skills. She should be hired for that.

------
cpeterso
I'm surprised there isn't a "Photoshop yourself with Shirley Hornstein" meme
yet.

~~~
se85
LMAO!

Thats a really good idea!

~~~
cpeterso
Or better yet, Shirley Hornstein with unexpected people or places: Shirley
Hornstein with Darth Vader. Shirley Hornstein with the Curiosity rover on
Mars.

------
lukejduncan
"So shame on TechCrunch for publishing something that belongs on TMZ."

...

TechCrunch essentially is TMZ.

------
n00b101
Cry me a river.

------
googoobaby
Seriously. You expect me to cry over a hustler's lies? It is amusing how
recursively narcissistic the tech community is, but eventually even they reach
their stack limit.

------
googoobaby
[http://gawker.com/5938904/notorious-silicon-valley-fraud-
shi...](http://gawker.com/5938904/notorious-silicon-valley-fraud-shirley-
hornstein-is-making-friends-at-gop-convention)

She's apparently the bane (or Bain) of the Republicans now

