
Arrington now officially out - hunterowens
http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/12/deciding-to-move-on/
======
varunsrin
Am I one of the few who thinks that Arrington & TechCrunch are a problem in
the startup world today?

The reason TC gets the scoops is in part because they strong-arm startups by
not writing about them if they don't provide an exclusive. Now, granted they
get a lot of scoops about major companies which is quite impressive - but
honestly, that's not very insightful, just juicy bits of info that we like to
read about.

Most startups that TC 'scoops' tend to be "social mobile local" startups that
generate buzz - there are a lot of successful startups in decidedly non-sexy
areas that are quite profitable, which never get covered because they don't
get the same page views that say, Color's $40 million investment does.

I think Arrington & TC actively hurt the startup community by providing a
narrow world-view. Sites like GigaOM & Ars Technica provide thoughtful,
indepth analysis of the technology scene , while TechCrunch continues to post
opinionated, linkbait pieces.

Am I the only one who feels that TechCrunch is the startup world's Jersey
Shore? Just because you get a lot of views doesn't mean that your content is
valuable or useful in any way.

~~~
wh-uws
_I'll semi repeat a previous answer about this topic:_

I look at Techcrunch like this. TechCrunch is TMZ for our industry.

On one end there is the phenomenal up to the minute, you can't find this
anywhere else, everyone will be talking about it nonstop for a week, they
scooped everybody stuff. (i.e. TMZ scooped the entire news industry on Michael
Jackson's death and TechCrunch routinely scoops other tech blogs on stuff like
Google trying to buy path and Color's last funding round)

And then there is the tech/startup industry drama and celebrity gossip.

If you look at as such you won't be so surprised and offended when you read
it.

~~~
duhprey
Great perspective. There are some celebrities who seem to live and die by the
hype associated with those sorts of stories. And there are other celebrities
who have a distinguished body of work and only incidentally appear in those
rags. Which kind of startup would you rather be: the Kardashian or the Helen
Miram?

------
MattLaroche
I can remember the post that finally pushed me to unsubscribe from TechCrunch:
[http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/20/why-we-often-blindside-
comp...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/20/why-we-often-blindside-companies/).
It's by Michael Arrington, and it's one step short of a hatchet job on
Caterina Fake. It's not the only dirty laundry airing I've seen on TechCrunch,
it's just the most fetid.

I liked TechCrunch when it primarily carried the underdog and captured the
optimism and energy of the valley. Whenever Michael Arrington used it as a
soapbox to air dirty laundry, it made me uncomfortable.

To the future leaders of TechCrunch: Less ValleyWag, more GigaOM.

~~~
Jun8
So, why _did_ she leave Hunch? Anyone care to fill in? Is this another example
of the timeless adage "never start a company with your sig other"?

~~~
gyardley
Why she left Hunch is really none of your business or mine.

Mike Arrington may or may not have received some information from someone who
may or may not have been telling the truth, which he then chose to describe in
a blog post as 'sordid'. That still doesn't make idle gossip and speculation
appropriate.

~~~
Jun8
Pardon my naivete (or nosiness, perhaps) but, why isn't it our business? When
a well-known co-founder leaves a company they started, isn't it news? Why
isn't it in this particular case? When Jobs leaves people dissect the event to
its constituent quarks, admittedly Fake is not that big, but still, she _is_
well-known. So isn't it natural for people to be curious?

Other than idle curiosity, isn't news of this kind important for investors? If
you were to invest $10M in her next startup, wouldn't you want to know why she
left the previous one, heck, isn't the first questions one gets asked in an
interview "Why are you leaving your previous company"? Do you counter those by
saying it's nobody's business?

~~~
gyardley
The group of people that have a relevant reason for discussing her departure
from Hunch (which could potentially include future investors, future co-
founders, future business partners, and future employees) can ask her and/or
Hunch about it directly. That subset of people is considerably smaller than
TechCrunch's (or Hacker News') readership.

It _is_ natural for people to be curious, which is why gossip exists, and why
there's a market for publishing it. However, our tendency to gossip is
something we should resist and overcome.

There's a large distinction between Fake and Jobs (or Schmidt, or Bartz). The
former was an executive of a small private company. The latter was the CEO of
one of the largest public companies on earth, owned in part by many thousands
of investors, all of whom have a financial interest in his health. Executives
_do_ have to explain things to their investors, and in a public company, the
investors and the public are the same.

TechCrunch and similar publications have long tried to treat Silicon Valley
and high-tech entrepreneurship in general as 'Hollywood for geeks', and the
founders of startups as the equivalent to entertainment figures. But
entrepreneurs aren't politicians or movie stars, no matter how much the tech
press (and certain entrepreneurs!) might like it to be so, and subjecting
their private lives to the same amount of scrutiny is repugnant.

~~~
Jun8
This is an interesting discussion and I agree with some of your comments. As
guidelines for interest you seem to prescribe (i) company size and (ii)
public-private (this fails for intensely polarizing people like Zuckerberg,
though, guy had a _movie_ made on him). Fair enough.

You blame TechCrunch (and its ilk) for pumping the "Hollywood for geeks"
culture, which is of course true. But this, as any Hollywood star knows, is a
two way street. Many of the geeks thrive on their stardom, with thousands of
people following their Twitter feeds and blogs. This in turn leads to
investment in their companies (and appearances and book deals, etc.) I'm not
saying that all geeks (or Fake) employ such Kardeshian-like tactics to get
attention, but some _do_. TechCrunch is a channel for these people to get and
focus attention (although Arrington's style does sometime get crude). It's the
same dynamic as movie/TV stars and late night shows, if you're in that
business you have to do the rounds.

Now, in the case of Fake, I don't know why leaving the company is her "private
life" but most people here seem to think so. Arrington in his blunt way hints
that there is "juicy" bits to this. If that is the case, I have no interest.
My question was not to pry into Fake's dating life per se. I am much more
interested in understanding the thought patterns (or the downvoting patterns)
on HN than this issue.

------
jemfinch
Can someone summarize the controversy for me?

As I understand it, Arrington wanted to head a new VC while at the same
continuing to serve as head of TechCrunch, the major journalistic outlet in
the startup field. AOL raised questions about his journalistic integrity, and
made him choose between being a VC and being a journalist, and he gave them an
ultimatum, they called his bluff, and he chose VC.

Did I miss a detail or nuance that makes this anything other than AOL holding
up traditional journalistic virtues?

~~~
ig1
Arrington voluntarily posted on TC announcing he was stepping down as Editor
of TC but remaining on as a writer while he went to start his new fund. His
new fund is primarily funded by AOL and he has the full support of the AOL
CEO.

Arianna who's responsible for AOL's other news outlets then had her staff tell
the media that Arrington was fired and would have no role at Techcrunch. This
seems to have been done without consulting the AOL executive committee who
backed Arrington.

Techcrunch when they were acquired by AOL were promised full editorial
independence, hence they were AOL's only news blog outlet not to be controlled
by Arianna. Arianna then attempted to make a power grab by publicly announcing
that Techcrunch fell under her control and she was going to appoint the new
editor.

Arrington complained that this grossly violated the editorial independence
promised by AOL, and that Techcrunch should be able to appoint it's own
editor. Many of TC's writers are unhappy with this violation and feel without
independence they won't be able to retain the tone and spirit of TC (which is
often very abrasive).

At least one of their writers (Paul Carr) has publicly stated that he would
resign unless Arrington got to appoint the next editor . Even in this article
note how the Techcrunch writer puts "Deciding" in quotation marks to indicate
that Arrington was pushed.

The final line of the press release "TechCrunch will be expanding its
editorial leadership in the coming months." seems to imply that Arianna has
won the power battle within AOL. The line saying Erick Schonfeld has been
named editor is highly misleading, Erick's been co-editor of TC since 2007, it
adds nothing new to the situation.

~~~
mikeryan
Small note, this doesn't seem to be simply an unsolicited power grab on
Arianna Huffington's part. From the Press Release announcing the AOL
Acquisition of Huffpo:

 _Arianna Huffington To Lead Newly Formed The Huffington Post Media Group
Which Will Integrate All Huffington Post and AOL Content, Including News,
Tech, Women, Local, Multicultural, Entertainment, Video, Community, and More_

It seems like her role as Editor In Chief of all AOL content was part of the
deal she made, since this occurred after the Techcruch deal was done Arrington
likely had little recourse at that point. (Huffpo was acquired after TC, any
promises made to TC about editorial independence was prior to the new
editorial leadership). "Promises" made when big companies buy little ones are
always pretty worthless once the rubber really hits the road.

~~~
ig1
TC has remained mostly independent after that point as well:

[http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/24/aol-to-restructure-media-
gr...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/24/aol-to-restructure-media-group-around-
huffington-post-heres-the-internal-email/)

Of-course none of that will matter if the TC writers decide to leave an create
a rival blog. It comes down to if AOL can now pay them enough to stay.

~~~
mikeryan
_TC has remained mostly independent after that point as well:_

I think that current events have pretty much dispelled that notion.

------
ig1
One thing all the coverage of this has missed is that Arrington's leaving
doesn't really fix this conflict of interest.

Two critical points:

1) Crunchfund is funded by AOL. 2) Techcrunch is owned by AOL.

Yes Arrington being in-charge of both was a conflict of interest, but the fact
is that even after Arrington's resignation/firing, AOL is still in charge of
both.

------
epenn
_Erick Schonfeld has been named the editor of TechCrunch. TechCrunch will be
expanding its editorial leadership in the coming months._

This makes me somewhat skeptical about how much autonomy Erick will be given
in the long run. Unless they mean the expanded editorial leadership would
ultimately answer to him.

------
kloncks
Arrington leaving will create a void in technology news-covering. Say what you
want, but he's had terrific scoops, amazing interviews, and elevated the
status of startups in the press.

But what do you expect from Arianna and AOL?

He'll have a pretty personal personal blog - something like AVC - and I look
forward to him bringing his expertise and style to investing. Good times.

~~~
brown9-2
I don't think it's fair to blame the other parties for this. The void was in
the making as soon as Arrington decided he should head a VC fund.

~~~
slantyyz
That's funny, I thought the void was in the making as soon as Arrington & co.
decided to _sell_ TechCrunch.

It's not like we all didn't see this happening 11 months ago.

------
hunterowens
Here is Arrington's announcement at Disrupt:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFARI6oBv8c>

------
cienrak
This is good news. Erick is a great reporter without all the conflicts of
Arrington.

------
JohnTHaller
Arrington launches a ThisIsMyNext-style competing blog in 3, 2, ...

~~~
cienrak
Disagree. Arrington will have a powerful personal blog. But now he gets to
have his cake and eat it to.

He leaks intel to his former staffers at TC to cover. He writes occasionally
as an unpaid blogger. And he runs Crunchfund without any conflicts.

------
ricw
Kind of predictable. There is no way he could be a "serious startup
journalist" while working as a VC. While at first AOL seemed to be the "big
evil corp.", it now seems to me that this is a simple journalistic principle
that should be held and valued highly. As such, I applaud AOL to sticking to
this principle. It's simply the right decision. And if Arrington did a good
job and laid all the groundwork (and AOL doesn't mess up), techcrunch will
keep on going as it has..

~~~
greyman
But Michael already has several investments in various companies, so what is
the principal difference now? He kind of was a VC already, wasn't he?

I am also not sure if TC will be the same without Michael. I personally don't
think so, but we'll see.

~~~
eli
It was wrong before too. It got even more wrong with the new fund, though.

------
adrianscott
Oh my Gaahd! I like totally can't wait to buy Arrington's next startup... the
transition will be so seamless... he'll help preserve and expand value during
the transition and afterwards...

well, on second thought, maybe not...

------
jarek
pageview++;

~~~
troymc
Error: Buffer overflow

~~~
philwelch
Pageview is a pointer?

~~~
troymc
It's probably an integer :D

~~~
philwelch
Unless pageview is a pointer or an array index, or a value used to calculate a
pointer or array index, there's no way incrementing it can lead to a buffer
overflow. Maybe an integer overflow.

