

Ask HN: Is TMZ more "honorable" than TechCrunch? - ckjohnston

Everyone read TechCrunch's reasons for publishing stolen internal Twitter documents. Now, there's a "stolen" video of ESPN's Erin Andrews that's being shopped around to places like TMZ. And since I happen to watch TMZ, I've noticed Harvey Levin mention over the last couple of days that he won't air any of the footage b/c it's a blatant invasion of privacy.<p>It goes without saying that there's a difference b/w internal documents and a nude video, but both are stolen and both are "newsworthy" (in a sense that readers want to read/watch them). I just wonder where TC and others draw the line. In fact, maybe TMZ should've gone one step further and not even mention the video exists in the first place.
======
technomancy
Is $NOUN more $POSITIVE_ADJECTIVE than TechCrunch? Probably.

------
jacquesm
One of the big arguments for TC releasing the documents (or parts thereof) was
that it would happen anyway.

Are there any documented instances of that ?

Is it ok to do something because otherwise somebody else would do it instead ?

Mentioning something exists is not the same as getting tons of mileage out of
stolen property.

Btw, the malware writers will have a field day with the search terms 'erin
andrews video'.

