

The Line Was Crossed - olalonde
http://www.danielbru.com/2010/02/the-line-was-crossed/

======
wrs
Ah, such a classic device for someone so young:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made>

~~~
kylec
Yeah, it made for a pretty lame non-apology. He needs to own up to his mistake
and admit that _he_ crossed the line, not that "a line was crossed".

------
dbz
_"In some way or another, a line was crossed that should have never been."_

I dislike him, imho, for not being able to own up to what he did. Passive
voice is not admitting anything. I mean- he might as well say "They crossed a
line and I got fired," for he isn't actually admitting any fault.

~~~
rooshdi
Give him a break; he was mature enough to apologize in public to TechCrunch
and the tech community and should be forgiven. The kid seems to understand
that his actions were wrong and promises to learn from this experience. I'd
like to see the start-up who sent him the gift make the same public apology.

~~~
tdmackey
Who says he was offered a bribe? Perhaps he demanded it?

~~~
rooshdi
Both parties are still in the wrong since the start-up shouldn't have accepted
any of his demands.

------
raganwald
Does this gratify anyone's intellectual curiosity or is it more worthy of a
tech tabloid? This feels like one of those trashy "reality tv shows," I expect
more from the front page of hacker news.

~~~
radu_floricica
I was about to flag this but then I got to the link which explains what the
incident actually was. I think it makes for relevant reading - both that such
things happen, and for the way tech crunch handled it. It's an unsavory part
of life, but this makes it more important to have such incidents as
transparent as possible.

~~~
raganwald
The fact that this happened to Techcrunch makes it peripherally related to
technology, and thus the interest here. But I think thi sis pretty-much
exactly what separates news about technology people from hacker news.

The fact that one or two articles in techcrunch were unreliable is hardly
news, this is an isolated incident. The actual apology--from a 17 year-old who
is not himself a hacker nor a startup founder and whether it is sincere or not
--not hacker news in my opinion.

That being said, who died and made me King?

~~~
radu_floricica
Humm. The apology is not fit to be here, true. The submission should probably
have linked to the techcrunch article. But the issue I think is worthy of
attention because of the hacker aspect, not because it's technology. There are
many review sites out there, on pretty much any subject possible, and the way
a high profile one deals with open corruption is interesting stuff, imho.

------
michaelpavelich
Sadly, it is somewhat disappointing how this situation was handled. It is
understandable that Techcrunch is attempting to cover their own ass in terms
of journalistic integrity but the fact that the individual at hand was a minor
complicates the situation. When Arrington writes in "An Apology To Our
Readers", anyone who is even remotely familiar with Techcrunch can deduce who
screwed up from the information provided.

Yes, Daniel made a lapse in judgement, but being a minor (and clearly are hard
and dedicated worker) he should have at least been given the opportunity to
let this go down silently. When a minor gets into some trouble before they are
18, typically their record is wiped clean as they enter adulthood. Sadly, this
is a permanent public record and could prevent him from getting hired or
having a career in journalism again (whether thats deserved or not is up in
the air).

As an intern, should he have been given so much responsibilty? Who knows
really, it just kind of feels like they took advantage of Daniel and threw him
to the wayside when he first faultered. Clearly that much spotlight and
attention for someone that young might have been too much (at least without
some protectionary measures). Losing his intern position and having to deal
with that personally and with his family should have been punishment enough.
If he wanted to make that a public issue, he should have at least gotten the
choice. Instead he was forced publicly to disclose what happened to the world
and might have to live with that small error in judgement his whole life.
Ahah, it's almost the internets version of the story of original sin. I guess
the temptation was to great for someone so young and naive and now hes been
branded a bad seed.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
I don't really see how being young is an excuse. Wrong is wrong, and he was
old enough to know it. And Arrington did try to shield him (to a very limited
extent); what would you have him do, keep someone on staff who has been proven
to be corrupt?

~~~
roundsquare
There is a difference between knowing what is wrong because you've heard it
and internalizing it. This is one reason why younger employees are usually
given limited responsibilities. I'm not trying to excuse his behavior, but are
high school interns usually given a blog on a major publication and free reign
to write whatever they want? Seems like a bad idea...

~~~
JoachimSchipper
Yes, one could make the point that his boss (i.e. Arrington) should have
prevented this from happening, and I'd have to agree.

I must admit to having no better argument (although _I_ wouldn't have done
such things!), but note that "not having internalized wrong" is not
meaningfully different from the "too young" argument I first disagreed with.

Unless you want to suggest that it's a failure of education?

------
pudo
Not to rant, but doesn't it feel weird to read such a perfectly crafted press
statement written by a teenager about his personal matters?

Of course he's been writing for TC and I won't doubt its the right thing to
write such a blog post in his situation, but this could just as well be
written for a politician or a manager.

------
johnyzee
Culture permeates an organization from the top. The guy probably just followed
the tacit business practice, but was clumsy about it due to his age and
inexperience.

I mean, Michael Arrington takes equity in return for publicity, this guy took
a MacBook Air. What exactly is the difference?

~~~
ekanes
Quite simply, the difference is that Michael would tell you about it. When
you're aware or relationship or bias, you can (somewhat) mentally adjust for
it.

------
machrider
If you're curious what he's apoligizing for, apparently TechCrunch has outed
him here: [http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/02/04/an-apology-to-our-
reade...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/02/04/an-apology-to-our-readers/)

~~~
tlrobinson
TC only posted his name after Daniel made this post.

However, it was blatantly obvious since his about page disappeared
<http://www.techcrunch.com/author/danielbru/>

~~~
machrider
Well, as an outsider who doesn't read TechCrunch, I never would have known
what he was apoligizing for, unless TechCrunch had made that update on their
entry (and "trackbacked" it on Daniel's blog). His apology was pretty
nonspecific. Not that I really care one way or the other, but TechCrunch
certainly "outed" him there.

------
colinplamondon
What a shit apology- 'thanks for the opportunity, even though I purposefully
tried to elicit bribes' to 'I did something generically bad, but won't own up
to it' to 'look at me I'm a teenager, teens in tech, enjoy being a teenager,
age, age, age'.

------
ghshephard
Am I the only person reading about this wondering what's going on? I thought a
major part of being a tech writer was getting free stuff, particularly
laptops, cameras, and such?

I mean, come on - "TechCrunch" isn't exactly the New York Times, or the Wall
Street Journal.

If someone had written "So and So intern got a laptop for writing an article
at TechCrunch", I would have said "Awesome. Good on him. Hopefully he scores
some more nifty electronics...."

I've never, ever, lived under the illusion that TC is some bastion of
journalistic integrity... And I say this as an Avid and enthusiastic reader.

~~~
tdmackey
Essentially, it breaks down to if the non-journalistic party offers it to the
journalist as part of the "review process" and it is disclosed it is ethical,
if the journalist demands a random "gift" in exchange for running their story
it is unethical. Speculation leans towards the latter being the case.

------
matkem
What he did was unacceptable.

Why should someone be bribed with free expensive products for writing a blog
post?

He took advantage of the situation. It takes a lot of time and effort for
hardworking people to make money and I don't see why a kid should be given a
MacBook under unethical circumstances.

~~~
allenp
Let me re-write my response: Why shouldn't they pay for getting the
advertising and millions of views of being on TechCrunch? Why should this be
free?

Wouldn't the ethical dilemma be the payment for good results not the payment
to be included in the first place? If consumer reports was running a review of
vacuums and I knew I'd probably not be included, is it unethical to pay them
to be included even if they don't give me high marks?

------
teeja
Who's never screwed up and lost sight of the long-term for a quick kick?

Perspective wasn't built in a day.

------
rjurney
He's 17. Think of the dumbest thing you did at 17. Now imagine it made
TechCrunch.

What a joke.

------
DanielBMarkham
As a fan of idiom and language, I'm glad to see the "mistakes were made" meme
continuing in strength.

People make mistakes. Kids make more of them. Now with the internet, this
mistake is going to live with Daniel for the next 80 years.

I'm really thankful that I lived in a time where you acted like an idiot when
you were a teenager, just like all teenagers, and then folks forgot about it.
But those days are long gone.

Meta note: It's very interesting to note the tone of some of the commenters
here.

~~~
Scriptor
Except this is not just a rookie mistake. Turning something in late because
you're still getting your bearings is a mistake. He knowingly misled anyone
who read his posts. Maybe if he was offered a bribe it would be more
understandable, he could have just thought of it as an extra gift and not be
completely familiar with the legal implications.

But he knowingly asked for a bribe in return for writing a post. His actions
shows an actual personality flaw, not inexperience.

I think it's a fair trade-off, a young person is given the chance to take on
an important role while being expected to show a certain level of maturity.

------
sailormoon
Morelike the palm was crossed, amiright?

