The editor in chief doesn't need to be the center of attention, I agree. BUT in TechCrunch's case he was. Mike had a swagger about him and how he wrote - which I think helped define how the others wrote. I think that's a big part of what made TC what TC is. So in this case, I think it does matter. Can Erick change how the ship is run and still be successful? Sure, but it's going to be hard.
BTW, I wasn't clear in my original post. My post was in reference to how both articles were written, not about the content. Swagger vs no swagger.
Sometimes the EIC does need to be the center of attention. It gives the publication a voice. Arrington did it online and in events, the Wired and Tech Review EICs are mostly at the center on the event side, with far less writing/reporting in print and online.
We're not talking about the same thing. The NYT and WSJ are not tech pubs. They generally cover hard news, and in the case of the WSJ, provide a mouthpiece for the conservative political establishment in the United States. These newspapers are not about the EIC or publisher -- all editorials are deliberately unsigned and voice comes through in the reporting style and individual columnists/contributors (Krugman, Friedman, Mossberg, Pogue, etc.).
VS
http://uncrunched.com/2011/09/28/venturebeat-needs-to-put-on...
I do not think he can.