

Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence - pathik
http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/06/editorial-independence/

======
jonknee
Maybe it's just me, but millionaires fighting other millionaires for WordPress
admin status makes for little sympathy. I don't work at AOL and don't need to
take part in their office politics.

~~~
tzury

        millionaires fighting other millionaires 
        for WordPress admin status
    

could not phrase this better

------
anonfortc
This is so much fun. It seems that we now have a fight between two divas --
Arrington and Huffington. It is one of those fights where you do not care who
wins, you just hope for lots of bloodshed. It's like a Raiders Broncos game!

So Mike Arrington makes a stand for editorial independence. Now for those of
you new to this whole discussion, we should note that Mike editorial
independence Arrington started this whole brouhaha by the obvious and blatant
conflicts of interest he got himself in. Namely he was investing in companies
he covers and now is starting a fund that would seem to be dedicated to
investing in companies he covers.

After the ny times called him out on the conflict, it was obvious that
TechCrunch's claim of it being an independent news source would be utterly
laughable. And that probably prompted Ariana to make her move.

And now Arrington is making a bold stand by resigning in the name of
"editorial independence". Probably he did not have a choice but to resign, not
because of editorial independence from Ariana Huffington, but because of
editorial independence from his own conflicts of interest. But by making this
stand he very cleverly tried to divert the attention from his own fuckups and
poison the waters for whoever Ariana tries to appoint to lead TechCrunch.

Now I would like to say I am not on Ariana's side. I wanted to point out the
blatant hypocracy of Arringrton, but Ariana's career is so full of double
dealing and questionable behavior that I doubt TechCrunch would be better with
her. Like I said, it is the Raiders playing the Broncos, and I am not choosing
sides just enjoying the violence.

~~~
petervandijck
The conflict of interest is a total red herring. Arrington has _always_
disclosed much more than most. If you think it's not, you don't know how the
(tech) news industry works.

~~~
RockyMcNuts
The news business is always inherently conflicted. In the old days Tony
Perkins ran Red Herring and his father was the Perkins in Kleiner Perkins.

A journalist is always getting spin from insiders, and then has to write the
story that's true and complete, that engages readers. You're always making a
deal with the source, I'll help you get your side out, if you help me get the
story closer to the truth. Debunking spin is generally not a way to keep your
sources talking to you first, or writing what readers and advertisers want.

That being said, I don't see how you can be a VC, on the board of companies
and privy to all their inside dope, and at the same time be a journalist whose
job is ferreting out the inside dope from everybody else (including possibly
competition) and sharing it with the world and passing judgment on them.

You can't be an insider and an outsider at the same time. You can be a VC,
with fiduciary duties impacting your own and your investors' wealth, or a
journalist, whose duty is to inform readers as much as possible, but not both.

------
credo
Arrington frames it as a matter of "editorial independence" and doesn't talk
about ethics and conflict of interests.

However, I don't see how anyone else (and least of all, the owners of
TechCrunch) can ignore those two matters - and the resultant impact on the
credibility of TechCrunch.

Ultimately, Arrington made a conscious decision to sell TechCrunch to AOL. He
made another conscious decision to become the founder of CrunchFund.

The two-option ultimatum in his post seems like simple posturing. It seems
like he is ready to finally leave TechCrunch, but doesn't want to frame it as
a simple matter of leaving TechCrunch to become a full-time investor (who also
blogs - the Fred Wilson model).

~~~
tapp
> It seems like he is ready to finally leave TechCrunch, but doesn't want to
> frame it as a simple matter of leaving TechCrunch to become a full-time
> investor

I wonder about this. Even if you accept the premise that his priority is now
his fund, it seems like Mike's formally leaving TechCrunch could have a
nontrivial impact on "CrunchFund's" deal flow?

~~~
danbmil99
> Mike's formally leaving TechCrunch could have a nontrivial impact on
> "CrunchFund's" deal flow?

No, he's a brand unto himself and he knows it, and is cashing in on that in an
admirable way (from a game-theory perspective at least)

~~~
flarg
I second that; Arrington has always been a player.

------
jeremymims
Most people don't realize this, but The New York Times is a big corporation
like AOL (with sometimes similarish market caps).

\- The New York Times has invested in technology companies like AdKeeper,
Automattic, Ongo, Brightcove, Federated Media, and funds like Betaworks (which
is in dozens of startups in all kinds of fields). Have their reporters ever
received tips and information about upcoming companies and tech launches
because of these connections? Do they get written about more often than your
average startup? You better believe it. If you look through their coverage of
these companies they imperfectly acknowledge their involvement (even the ones
they've invested in directly).

Federated Media (2 years after an investment by New York Times):
[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/technology/30online.html?s...](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/technology/30online.html?sq=federated%20media&st=Search&scp=1&pagewanted=print)

BrightCove article that was published without due diligence and later
corrected eight days later:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/business/23corner.html?sq=...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/business/23corner.html?sq=bright%20cove&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=print)

GroupMe article where they mention that the company has taken $12 million but
neglect to mention they were part of the round through Betaworks:
[http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/skype-plans-to-
buy-...](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/skype-plans-to-buy-
messaging-start-up-groupme/?pagemode=print)

These were just three examples I pulled quickly (I sincerely apologize for
using these companies as examples since this has nothing to do with them). Do
your own search for any New York Times invested or Betaworks company on
nytimes.com and you'll see what I mean. Does this change their coverage of
other competing tech companies?

Funnily enough, the best resource to follow these connections is Crunchbase:
<http://www.crunchbase.com/company/newyorktimes>

\- The New York Times has their own internal division that develops software
products and services that other publishing companies and media companies buy.
Does this change their coverage on competing technologies and competitors?

\- The New York Times owns a diverse set of businesses in competition with
Aol's current strategy including about.com. They also own a chunk of the
Boston Red Sox.

I'm going to be blunt. I don't think the New York Times is shady enough to let
this change their coverage despite their obvious conflicts of interest (in the
BrightCove article in their 8 day later correction stresses that "The New York
Times Company owns a small stake of less than five percent in Brightcove". I
doubt Michael Arrington owns 5% of any startup he's written about). And since
TechCrunch has had (if anything) a policy of more transparency and disclosure
than the Times has had, I can't for the life of me see what all the ruckus is
about.

My disclosure: I am tangentially connected to most of these companies by
investment, friendship, or business relationships and I think the world of
them. OwnLocal also works with all kinds of newspapers and publishers as a
matter of course.

~~~
jonknee
Counterpoint, the NY Times has an ethics policy that would never have allowed
anything like TechCrunch (even before the newly announced investment fund
plan!).

<http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html#keeping>

"44. Staff members may not engage in financial counseling (except through the
articles they write). They may not manage money for others, offer investment
advice, or help operate an investment company of any sort, with or without
pay. They may, however, help family members with ordinary financial planning
and serve as executors or administrators of estates of relatives and friends
and as court-appointed conservators and guardians."

"They may not offer ideas or proposals to people who figure in their coverage
or make investments in productions in their field. (Food writers and editors
may not invest in restaurants.) "

Etc etc.

The New York Times company owns a lot of stuff. So does AOL. AOL running an
investment fund isn't shady in the least. Having an employee who covers tech
startups on one of your media properties run a fund for you that invests in
tech startups... Big difference. You don't see whoever's job it is to invest
in Automattic at the NY Times out there writing A1 on the technology page.

The main difference here is there is a strict firewall at the New York Times
Company and not at TechCrunch. Forget disclosure, the NY Times would never let
Mike have the startups beat in the first place because of his personal
investment activity. Make that professional investment activity and it's just
that much more unacceptable.

~~~
jeremymims
The New York Times already has a way around this through Op-Ed columnists.
Thus, it's okay for someone like Warren Buffett, Robert Reich, or someone the
Times hires on spec to completely ignore these policies. If TechCrunch were to
adhere to the Times' standard, then Arrington might alternatively be either an
Op-Ed columnist paid on spec for his pieces of writing, a reporter paid to do
a job, or a staff editorial writer.

The reality is that this is a distinction without difference today (especially
when editorial is mixed with reporting). Disclosure should be part of every
article, op-ed, or editorial. As far as I'm concerned, TechCrunch is actually
setting a more rigorous standard than the Times is for future media.

~~~
jonknee
Opinion is different than news. Op-Ed columnists don't get the inside track on
news that helps them make money and make money for others. Similarly,
reporters stay off the opinion page. It's not just a matter of disclosing, the
whole concept is against the policy of any reputable media organization (not
that I'm of the opinion TechCrunch is, but that's what this is about).

The NYT doesn't let their reporters trade on companies they cover. Would it
seem strange to you if a NYT reporter was hired to simultaneously manage a
venture fund to invest in companies that are on his beat?

------
mbreese
Why do I have the feeling that _we_ (the public) aren't the real target for
these posts? This all has the feel of a giant power-play within AOL that we
are only one side of.

I know that this is TechCrunch, but do we really have to be exposed to the
drama that is normally reserved for office politics? Or is this all just an
attempt to give Arrington, et al. cover for when this whole thing just blows
up?

Or, it could all be for the pageviews... has it been a slow news month?

~~~
nikcub
I would become a lot more suspicious of this being a pageview drive if Arriana
replied using huffingtonpost.com

~~~
brackin
It's obviously not a pageview drive... This is making AOL look really bad, so
if it's a pageview drive AOL is stupid. Especially because of the post MG
wrote last night which sounded very honest and blunt.

~~~
teej
AOL has been making money hand-over-fist while being the brunt of insults for
10 years now - this wouldn't be the first time.

~~~
keithwinstein
AOL's accumulated profit over its entire existence (pre-merger, merged, and
post-merger) is negative $1.1 billion, counting realized and unrealized
losses. They haven't made money at all yet.

------
mikek
Am I the only one who sides with Arrington? I feel that TechCrunch has taken
editorial ethics seriously so far, and see no reason why this shouldn't
continue.

~~~
9999
The capital J Journalist folks that MG Siegler referenced in his piece earlier
have found TechCrunch's position on editorial ethics so laughable that it's
almost hard to quantify the gulf between their expectations and the piddling
concessions TechCrunch has offered over the years.

I lived with a capital J journalist for a long time and got to know a lot of
his coworkers and contacts, and I was really quite surprised at the lengths
those people go to maintain their journalistic integrity. They would not
simply disclose conflicts of interest, they would completely avoid them. For
example, a lot of them would not even vote in elections or invest in funds
that could even potentially contain stock in companies that they could even
possibly cover in the future (regardless of whether or not they were even
working in that field!). To the individuals that subscribe to that system,
Arrington's position as an editor of a tremendously powerful tech news source
and an investor in tech companies is absolutely irreconcilable.

I think it's unfortunate that a lot of people really have little comprehension
of what this so-called "capital J journalism" is about. In fact, it's pretty
sad that someone in MG Siegler's position would even draw such a distinction.
There is no such thing as capital J journalism. There's journalism, and then
there's bullshit.

edited: originally I referred to Siegler as MC Siegler

~~~
philwelch
That's traditional journalism, but traditional journalism is going out of
business. Tabloids and demagoguery are an easier sell for dumb audiences, and
smart audiences can deal with bias, so there's only a niche market left for
impartial journalism. We certainly can't expect it to remain the predominant
paradigm.

You and I may think there's something seedy and questionable about writing for
a trashy tabloid, but it's not up to us what other people want to read.

~~~
9999
Tabloids and demagoguery have existed for as long as real journalism. I think
it's odd to think that either one is going to replace the other entirely,
although it certainly seems that at times one is more prevalent. Every era has
its Creelman and Hearst, but most have their Menckens and Pulitzers too.

The New York Times' article about Arrington's questionable ethics was written
with the general public in mind, most of whom probably know very little about
TC and Arrington. If nothing else, now when they see a TC reference or an
Arrington byline in some other venue (or if they click on a link directing
them to TC), they'll take whatever is said with a grain of salt. Perhaps
that's what you mean by "smart audiences can deal with bias." Unfortunately
that doesn't change the fact that even the smart people need a reliable
efficient source for startup news that isn't being delivered by people with a
monetary interest in what they're covering... Obviously most of the people
that are reading HN have enough interest in startup and tech news that they're
willing to filter primary sources themselves. But what about someone in
another field? Don't they deserve an unbiased, reliable, and informed source?

~~~
philwelch
I don't think anyone can afford to be naive anymore. Even traditional
journalism, by and large, was a sham--the "impartial" news media is still
biased for the most part, they're just better at hiding it under a veneer of
professionalism.

------
mikeleeorg
John Gruber wins for the best tl;dr I've seen of this drama yet:

> "I Sold My Company (to a Bunch of Idiots) and Expected to Still Maintain
> Control Over It."

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/09/06/aol-techcrunch>

------
rdouble
I briefly worked for AOL on the Winamp team right after they acquired both
Winamp and Time Warner. The story that an AOL deal ends up in a total cluster
fuck is 10 years old.

With any knowledge of recent history, it is boggling anyone thought this
acquisition would work and I don't believe for a second Arrington is writing
in earnest.

~~~
jackson71
SHOUTcast's recent week-long on and off outage and subsequent crippling of
their APIs is evidence enough of how seriously (or lack thereof) they take
some of their properties.

------
movingahead
Most of the editors at Engadget, another tech blog owned by AOL have left
publicly citing AOL's editorial policy. I am surprised by the lack of support
that Hacker News community is showing to Arrington. Even in the post
announcing the sale to AOL, there was clear stress about the editorial
independence of TC. Arrington always has had a weird investment policy, but to
his credit, he has maintained a strict transparency about his posts. For
people who are alleging what happens to those companies which are competitors,
won't the same logic apply to Fred Wilson or Om Malik, both of whom are VCs as
well as popular bloggers.

I do think Arrington should not have named his fund CrunchFund. Techcrunch
runs a database about companies and people involved in the tech industry
called Crunchbase. This brings us to a different question. Michael earlier had
a plan for a tablet called CrunchPad, which didn't materialize when he had a
fall-out with his technical partner. Does the brand name belong to the company
or to the founder ? No matter who owns the trademark and other legal stuff, I
believe it should stay with the company.

~~~
petervandijck
I'm surprised as well. Editorial independence is a real issue (not like the
conflict of interest red herring), and we're not defending it for the most
influential tech news blog?

~~~
movingahead
Agree. I am amazed at how most people just bash TechCrunch and leave the
matter. No matter one likes it or not, they are the biggest tech blog and so
very influential. TC's well-being is in the interest of the startup community.

------
aresant
Arrington & Armstrong created CrunchFund as partners and the controversy is
purely Arrington's doing.

This latest breathlessly pissed off post demonstrates Arrington can still post
anything he likes to TechCrunch.

So why not write a clear and concise explanation on TC to begin with?

I'd submit that Arrington is ready to leave TC to focus on investing, and
there's no better way to do that than with a massive page-view heavy
controversy.

~~~
petervandijck
Sure, Arrington doesn't care if he burns his bridges, he's ready to move on
and he knows what a post like this will buy him (respect and enemies). That
doesn't mean the controversy is empty though.

It's still ball-sy and more than 99.99% of people in the business would do and
yes, for that he gets respect points. Like it or not.

------
hollerith
This makes me suspect that Arrington is one of those people who every now and
then digs in his heels and has a complete inability to see things from his
opponent's point of view. For example, here he does not even bother to address
what seems to me to be the central issue (journalistic conflict of interest).

~~~
nknight
You seem to think this is AOL enforcing journalistic standards. Try reading
the whole saga again. The blowtorch that ignited this wasn't CrunchFund itself
(which AOL backed), but _AOL CEO Tim Armstrong_ (NOT Arrington) disclaiming
journalistic integrity:

 _“TechCrunch is a different property and they have different standards… we
have a traditional understanding of journalism with the exception of
TechCrunch.”_

This is a disaster of AOL's making, not Arrington's.

~~~
brown9-2
Where is he disclaiming journalistic integrity?

Seems to me like he is making a hands-off comment with regards to TechCrunch,
as in - we wouldn't allow an editor of a regular property to invest in
companies they write about, but TechCrunch has different rules.

~~~
nknight
I don't understand. How is saying "TechCrunch doesn't have to have
journalistic integrity" not disclaiming journalistic integrity for TC?

~~~
brown9-2
Perhaps it is, but having a member of the senior staff also running an
investment fund that invests in the very subjects of the TechCrunch site is a
huge integrity issue. Armstrong seemed to be dodging the question to me, a way
to avoid having to answer for what Arrington is up to.

~~~
nknight
I kinda see what you're getting at, but it doesn't really make any sense.
Armstrong was actively working with Arrington on the fund. It wouldn't be
answering for Arrington (or at least not _just_ Arrington), but for himself
and AOL as a whole.

This wasn't something that Arrington just announced out of the blue that AOL
has to scramble to react to. Armstrong was active in setting the whole thing
up, and _AOL was investing in the fund_. They _knew_ this was happening way in
advance, and announced it _with_ Arrington. _Then_ everything went to hell. To
whatever degree this could possibly be construed as Arrington's fault, it must
also be seen as at _least_ equally AOL's fault.

~~~
brown9-2
I agree wholeheartedly on that last point - it's all of their fault for not
making sure that a giant firewall existed between Arrington and TechCrunch as
a part of this announcement.

------
idlewords
It's called "selling out" for a reason. If Michael Arrington is genuinely
surprised that an acquirer is not holding to the sweet, sweet promises it made
him at acquisition time, then he has no business being a tech journalist.

The correct time for this kind of acute episode of journalistic integrity was
before cashing the AOL check, not after. He was under no pressure to
relinquish his independence.

More likely he sees an opportunity to head for the exit with at least one
suitcase still full of money.

------
Zakuzaa
I'd like to see mass exodus of writers and creating their own brand new site.
Sounds familiar.

~~~
jmjerlecki
I could see MG Siegler joining Thisismynext/The Verge.

~~~
randall
And Bankoff (the guy who orchestrated the Weblogs, Inc. merger, and subsequent
editorial strategy of the NewAOL which Armstrong is executing on today) would
probably be more than happy to welcome them into the fold.

------
kr1shna
It's the law of cycles. Techcrunch has had a good run, but in the internet
era, a fast paced blog can't last forever. See the downhill progress of
Engadget and Gizmodo. Time to make room for a new king of the hill.

------
zbruhnke
I think Arrington for got Option 3:

AOL says F __* You Arrington, does what they want since they bought tech
crunch and they own it. The past shareholders have no ability to recall the
buyout almost a year later and say nevermind we want our company back.

Reality is Arrington sold, Arrington started a new fund. People think this new
fund will interfere with Arrington's "Editorial Independence" therefore they
claim he will be gone.

At the end of the day it just does not matter that much, If Mike is who he
thinks he is he could just go start another blog tomorrow and gain all the
traction he wanted. His non-compete (if applicable) is probably non-
enforceable after the first twelve months anyhow.

If he is not then he should just go back to his new fund and invest in some
startups loudly (which is the Arrington fashion) which is probably what he
will do best

------
ojbyrne
So presumably this includes the possibility of writing 100% positive articles
on CrunchFund funded companies and 100% negative articles on their
competitors....

~~~
jobu
NBC is owned by GE, that doesn't restrict NBC Nightly News from reporting on
the weapons made by GE that were used by and against Libyan rebels. I
understand the levels of separation are a lot deeper with GE/NBC, but as long
as full disclosure is given about his relationship with Crunchfund companies I
don't see a huge ethical problem.

That said, I really don't see why Arrington would want to try wearing both
hats. It brings a huge magnifying glass onto the bias in his articles, and
possibly the articles of all those at TechCrunch.

~~~
ojbyrne
I bet NBC Nightly News has a fairly rigorous and well-defined code of ethics.

~~~
anamax
Yup, but "code of ethics" means:

A set of "rules" that sounds good to outsiders but lets insiders do what they
want.

Most "code of ethics" make it easy for insiders to call outsiders "unethical"
for doing things that insiders do.

For example, "journalists" are allowed to make up quotes. Outsiders aren't.

------
scottkrager
Who didn't see this coming 11 months ago? Many founders seem to regret the
sale of their baby...Arrington is no different. Acquisitions are tough when
talented people are involved and it's no longer their ship to run.

------
Uchikoma
I know I will be voted down, but this reminds me of PGs comments on the AirBbB
threads.

------
marcamillion
Like Arrington/TC or not, it is hard to deny that since the AOL acquisition
that TC has gone above and beyond to make sure they assert their independence.

It's very interesting to see the internal politics spill out on the main page,
and it's fascinating to see the struggle between the competing entities after
an acquisition.

I think many/most other media acquisitions would have squashed this - imagine
any of News Corp media outlets EVER writing/reporting a negative story about
News Corp, and the same would go for NBC and MSNBC of GE, and all the others.

I must say, although it can be construed as just grandstanding and attention
grabbing, Mike and the TC team have gotten a few extra points from me over
these episodes.

Sure, they may have overdone it at times, but it couldn't have been easy for
Arrington to stand by and watch his reporters str8 up tell his new overlords
"Fuck Off" (literally - one of TC's bloggers tweeted that, can't remember
which one).

Glad to see them publicly wrestle with their independence. There is something
brave about doing it in public.

------
jneal
First off, I should say one thing. I am not a fan of Arrington. In fact, I
really dislike him and think he's an over-arrogant POS.

However, I do enjoy his site and prefer its raw ethical nature. They promised
editorial independence and this should remain true. I have to side with
Arrington. That being said, I don't believe pushing this issue publicly like
this is going to help one bit. I'd bet that AOL sees this post and considers
it insubordination leaving them with no choices but let him go (if that's even
possible?)

One thing I hate about the "big guys" in news is that it is the news "they"
want you to hear, and I hate that. If Arrington leaves TechCrunch, and the
ethics behind TechCrunch leave with him, I will no longer visit the site.

~~~
brown9-2
Why is "editorial independence" here being taken to mean the same thing as
"ethical"?

Aren't these two separate issues? I don't understand how AOL having some
editorial control over TechCrunch has anything to do with TechCrunch following
standard journalistic ethics with regards to conflicts of interest - _unless_
TechCrunch feels it should have the independence to not disclose conflicts of
interest.

~~~
wmf
There seems to be some discussion about exactly what "standard journalistic
ethics" is. Some people would probably prefer disclosure in a case where, say,
MG Sigler writes about a company that Arrington invested in. TechCruch feels
that no disclosure is required in such cases because of their unique lack of
editorial oversight (translation: apparently "TechCrunch" is just a bunch of
independent writers who don't talk to each other).

~~~
brown9-2
I think it would be more accurate to characterize that dispute as being
between TechCrunch and the rest of the entire journalism industry. I don't
think anyone else thinks that what TechCrunch would like - selective
disclosure, because "you can trust us" - is a good idea.

------
freejoe76
Glad more people are getting introduced to the term editorial independence.

------
rationalbeats
So instead of writing this message in an email to the powers at be at AOL, he
writes a blog post about it, which is certain to escalate the situation?

Why?

~~~
zackbelow
I am sure he has written and said many things to AOL at this point. He is
grumpy, rich and thinks AOL crossed major boundary lines that were part of
their original agreement. At this point, he knows that he can either:

a) Get AOL to bow down to his rants (Charlie Sheen anyone?) and "reimplement"
those boundaries. Basically he wants to stick it to the man that gave him 30
million to prove hes bigger than the man.

b) buy TC back from AOL, probably for half as much as they paid.

Inside I am sure he is thinkin this is awesome cuz either way dude walks away
with 8 bajillion dollars, synonymous popularity in tech world and every chance
in the world to start another uber blog/mediacompany/empire.

Plus, he can pull a Steve Jobs even if he does quit, and resurrect the company
at any time he wants to after AOL buries it and Ariana becomes Co-Editor..

------
RyanMcGreal
I'm reminded of the link posted last week [1] arguing that founders make
better CEOs. TechCrunch was a valuable asset for AOL to pick up precisely
because of the way it was organized and managed.

[1] [http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/steve-
jo...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/steve-jobss-law-
why-founders-make-the-best-leaders/244439/)

------
flocial
This whole saga is nothing short of confusing. I guess the owners of TC lost
sight of the picture when they saw a nice financial exit. They've covered AOL
long enough to know how bad things might get. What's really interesting is how
AOL managed stay alive all these years and even acquire properties with life
in them.

~~~
nikcub
> how AOL managed stay alive

selling overpriced dialup to old and ignorant people

(not a joke)

------
j_baker
_If Aol cannot accept either of these options, and no other creative solution
can be found, I cannot be a part of TechCrunch going forward._

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure AOL just told Arrington they
didn't _want_ him to have any significant role at TechCrunch going forward.

------
jmspring
Pile on Arrington?

Techcrunch is an interesting read now and then and certainly draws people that
love what they do and others that don't. Lots of trolls anytime Steve Gilmour
or MG Siegler post, it is the nature of the Web.

This very much seems like a spat between Arriana Huffington and Michael
Arrington, both of which have very public forums to address their sides. At
the end of the day, if the paperwork signed says that TC was to have
"editorial independence" from Huffington Post, then AOL needs to address that.
If it doesn't, then the parties involved need to figure out how to salve the
assorted egos.

The CrunchFund thing? I get the impression that Armstrong and Arrington get
along and Armstrong/AOL see the Crunchfund as a way of getting AOL (event at a
distance) more involved in developing new companies. Does it make things more
complicated? Probably.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

------
mapgrep
He already has editorial independence. What he wants is independence to run a
venture fund. It's a crucial distinction, and one AOL's lawyers can surely
make -- convincingly -- in court.

------
zxcvvcxz
Does anyone else think that techcrunch has a lot of drama for no good reason?
I used to like reading it a while ago, now I just don't care for it.

------
Angostura
AOL have moved to ensure that TechCrunch maintains its editorial
independence... from a venture fund.

------
ebaysucks
The solution is obvious: CrunchFund buys back a majority stake in TC from AOL
for $20 million.

AOL now owns TC indirectly, as Mike is the middle man.

------
pcj
Leaving editorial Independence aside, if Arrington was fired from TC and AOL,
how is he able to write this post? Sounds all like a sham!

------
adnam
Get stuffed already.

------
Slimy
I wonder how much of this whole brouhaha was staged.

~~~
toddmorey
I was just going to post the same comment! 1) Quietly and privately agree on
his role, then 2) stage a public melodrama for traffic, and finally 3) bring
the drama to a resolution favorable to both TC and AOL. That's worth at least
4 or 5 record-traffic articles if played right. (I'm usually not this cynical,
but then again, this is TechCrunch.)

------
chugger
wait for ThisIsMyNextCrunch to launch in the next few months.

~~~
kr1shna
I've previously suggested that MG and some of the crew should go join the
upcoming Verge

------
suking
drama queens

------
drivebyacct2
"Trolls trolling trolls."

------
RickHull
The page loaded completely empty for me, even after enabling every prompted
script domain via NoScript. Curious, I checked the source, and it looks like
the page essentially consists of script elements within an unclosed head tag:

<http://pastebin.com/JkVyL9tb>

sigh...

~~~
cheald
That would likely be PHP throwing a fatal error and bailing out.

