
Actually, Aol Didn’t Ask Us To ‘Tone It Down’ – Moviefone did.  - jasonlbaptiste
http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/16/actually-aol-didnt-ask-us-to-tone-it-down-moviefone-did-and-their-editor-in-chief-should-be-fired-2/
======
ricefield
At this point, I don't even care any more. Not to be a whiner, but I don't
find this very Hacker News -esque. Nothing to do with hacking, just a bunch of
bloggers pointing fingers at each other.

------
ramanujan
So, Paul Carr isn't really thinking it through here with this comment:

    
    
      Actually, Patricia, you only have two loyalties: one is to
      your readers and one is to the company that signs your 
      paychecks. That’s it. You do not – emphatically do not – 
      have a responsibility to “stay on good terms” with movie 
      studios.
    

Just like Moviefone has to maintain good relationships with studios,
Techcrunch has to maintain good relationships with tech companies, or else its
access will be cut off and things will be made difficult for it in many ways.
It can burn a source from time to time just for fun, but if that becomes a
habit, then it just stops getting scoops and bad things start happening. For
example, some hypotheticals:

\- pg stops sending them new YC startup launches

\- startups start actively avoiding Arrington and his reporters and seeking
out more friendly outlets, e.g. Startup Foundry

\- some smart startup guy with time on his hands does an investigative report
on TechCrunch itself, showing how the post-AOL TechCrunch has SEO'd its
headlines to the gills with Bieber and Gaga crap

And in addition to these sorts of perceptible consequences for burning sources
(i.e. scoop decline = traffic decline = revenue decline), there is another
dimension to this.

Put yourself in the position of the unfortunate PR person for Source Code.
Their entire investment of time and effort -- getting the Techcrunch contact,
arranging a screening, getting Alexia face time with a mercurial movie start
like Gyllenhaal -- went up in smoke when Alexia trashed the Source Code game
stuff. [Though you could argue that the movie sort of has higher awareness now
as a center of "controversy", this was not the intended outcome.]

The thing is, PR guys are scared of talking to reporters because there are
often very large sums at stake that can turn on the whim of the reporter.
Anyone who has raised money in the Valley knows that deals can close -- or
fall through -- on the basis of a single well timed adverb in a headline.

Reporters are only dimly aware of the economic consequences of their
reporting, and their ability to create -- or utterly destroy -- wealth. It's
like there is a river of money flowing by them, and they can either reroute it
off a cliff or towards an even larger tributary, but cannot actually take a
drink from the water.

I'm of course not saying that reporters shouldn't publish negative stories or
takedowns, but rather that often they aren't aware of just how bad a negative
story can be if it's the top hit on Google. For those who have built
something, your heart is in your throat when talking to the first few people
who are going to publicly evaluate it -- are they going to trash it to such an
extent that you won't even get the resources to improve it? It's at least
arguable that an alternative to the tabloidy approach of Techcrunch is the
more builder-friendly approach of David Pogue and Walt Mossberg, who generally
don't write about things if they're going to trash them (i.e. the sign that
they don't consider something that good is a lack of coverage rather than an
outright flame).

Finally, sometimes reporters _are_ aware of the economics surrounding press
coverage, but in the worst way. Think about what Gizmodo wrote about the
stolen iPhone:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-gizmodo-
editor-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-gizmodo-editor-brian-
lams-email-to-steve-jobs-raises-question-would-gizmodo-have-published-iphone-
story-if-apple-hadnt-spurned-it-2010-5)

    
    
      Gizmodo lives and dies like many small companies do. We
      don't have access, or when we do, we get it taken away.
    

Make no mistake, access and credibility both have business value to any media
company and need to be balanced. Access means good treatment of sources.
Credibility means good treatment of readers. If you are only "credible", you
are reporting yesterday's news. And if you only have access, you are only
reporting airbrushed news. There is a balance, and Carr has to acknowledge
that.

