

Arrington Plays His Nuclear Option Against the NY Times - padrack
http://www.betabeat.com/2011/09/12/mike-arrington-goes-nuclear-says-ny-times-is-conflicted-tech-investor-via-true-ventures/

======
hullo
I'm all in favor of disclosure, so bad on the Times here etc. All the same, if
we accept that there's an utterly subjective continuum between "appearance of
conflict" and "actual full raging conflict impacting journalistic coverage" I
would place the Times at the former end and TechCrunch at the latter.

------
cienrak
Mike Arrington has played his "nuclear card"

Nowhere in the extensive coverage of Crunchfund or the op-ed scolding by David
Carr did the NY Times mention that it was an investor in True Ventures.

Ironically, the NY Times even lumped GigaOm and Om Malik into its list of
conflicted bloggers.

------
albertsun
Do the Times tech/media reporters and editors stand to personally gain or lose
from this investment?

I'm guessing as editorial employees they're completely separated from any kind
of investment decisions made by NYT corporate.

~~~
0003
Regardless, NYTimes should have a robust system to prevent covered persons
from reporting on matters in which they are related.

------
dbrown26
Childlike logic. Just because someone else is doing something wrong doesn't
give you license to do it too. Arrington should have brought it up as an
issue, not used it as a trump card.

------
slantyyz
What's so "nuclear" about it?

At best, it's an "interesting tidbit" that might cause a bit of embarrassment
to the Times.

