Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
TechCrunch controversy EXPOSED!
valleywag.com — Michael Arrington didn't learn much at Wednesday's Blogging Ethics talk. Valleywag reader, Jayson Lim, pointed out that Michael reported on Maya's Mom receiving funding today and referenced an earlier writeup on TechCrunch in April. Except that's not the original article, it's been edited to remove bias disclosure made by Arrington.
m3avrck- 314 diggs
- digg it
- m3avrck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Seems this is a reoccuring theme: http://www.valleywag.com/tech/top/send-us-your-deleted-techcrunch-comments-190698.php
- eliztown, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3weird, idk what's going on. it may be nothing, it may be something! but of course at digg, everything is a conspiracy!
- texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18Actually, I was involved in a startup competitor to Maya's Mom and we tried to get prelaunch press from Arrington months ago (around the same time as he first announced Maya's Mom) but he wouldn't give us the time of day. Now that our site launched (about 2 weeks ago), Arrington has still ignored us, despite press releases and direct contact...and now he's pimping Maya's Mom...which is owned by a former colleague and friend of his.
***** Arrington's biased ass. He as no credibility anymore. - hobgobbler, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18who the ***** cares. seriously.
- MiloMindrbindr, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10@texpundit
He's a single guy, probably getting bombarded by 50 companies like yours a day. If you're relying on him that much to get the word out about your product, you might want to take a look at your product and ask yourself these questions:
1) Is he not responding/reviewing because maybe your site sucks? (Do you expect him to review every little web2.0 startup?)
2) If it was good enough, would it really need him to make a push? (Submit it to digg for christ's sake. Let the masses decide.)
3) What would you do in his shoes if you were being bombarded by press kits and requests for reviews (knowing he sits on boards of a company or two, aka has other jobs)?
Use your head and stop bitching. If your product is good enough, it'll do just fine without him. - r2d7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11When did he ever have credibility?
- Doomorks, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7shady ***** if you ask me
- code, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1heh, idk if it's shady. i actually don't know what to think! everybody is a whistle-blower these days, that's for sure
- greatromance, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I like your description, it really captured the controversy. Digg.
- abyssknight, on 11/10/2007, -3/+19Oh how I hate TechCrunch.
I loathe it, yes, yes I do.
Glad to see this stuff finally hitting the fan. - navvvv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I can't think of anything more boring than blogs bitching at each other.
someone stand on my brain and make it forget I read this... please.- Modulo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5diggers digging down dudes dissing boring blogs bitchin' 'bout blogs?
- ElGuano, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Seriously, is this a huge deal? Maybe I just don't count blogs as incredibly permanent or authoritative sources of journalism, but on the other hand I expect bloggers to write whatever they want whenever they want, and it doesn't bug me that much if they delete or modify prior entries.
- spacey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6ElGuano,
By and large I agree - but I do like it that people point these things out. TechCrunch goes on and on and on about how paid blogging/pay-per-post is awful and unethical and will ruin the blogosphere, and it turns out they're not so perfect either. - freedomfightr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://drumsnwhistles.com/2006/10/30/arrington-is-now-officially-an-*****
- freedomfightr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I expect bloggers to write whatever they want whenever they want, and it doesn't bug me that much if they delete or modify prior entries."
oh yeah...has Dan Rather started blogging?
- spacey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6ElGuano,
- Higgins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm glad at least some of you liked my article.
- m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It was a load of crap.
- MiloMindrbindr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10So you're telling me a blog, run by a guy who has ties to web companies, where he reviews and gives his opinions on web 2.0 sites and topics might be biased? Heaven forbid! Come on guys, is it really that much of a surprise?
- m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1At least he is honest and open about conflicts of interest. And he does slam sponsors and companies he's invested in, and even pimped competitors.
TechCrunch is a good blog and most of the backlash is coming from whiny little punks because they can't get on it. That tells you two things... one, TechCrunch is just that damn good.. two, they pick only the top stuff, and so, these punks need to step their game up.
- m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1At least he is honest and open about conflicts of interest. And he does slam sponsors and companies he's invested in, and even pimped competitors.
- Higgins, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Note: Arrington does questionable posts on his site on a weekly basis:
http://www.valleywag.com/tech/michael-arrington/michael-do-better-next-time-209922.php - bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Why is editing an old blog post so bad? I mean, I understand that its like changing the past on one of the most popular blogs around, but seriously... he cut out a single line. Wheres the controversy? Wheres the massive scandal? I understand the whole bias angle, but it went live recently and he knows about it, so wouldn't that qualify it in itself? I don't know, but I'm seeing quite a bit of bias on ValleyWag's part as well, and honestly I just don't care.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3the dude at vallywag is just mad that Mike Arington said things about Vallywags credibility or lack therefor of
its a tech gossip blog so the dude will try to expose controversy- Higgins, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Actually, I was only subbing on the site for a week and don't have anything personal against Michael Arrington. As for Nick's (the regular editor) other post, I doubt there is any vendetta, it's just Michael sells himself as a respectable blogger but constantly screws up making him an easy target.
@Bennyboy371
Editing no, editing disclosure statments, very much so.
- Higgins, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Actually, I was only subbing on the site for a week and don't have anything personal against Michael Arrington. As for Nick's (the regular editor) other post, I doubt there is any vendetta, it's just Michael sells himself as a respectable blogger but constantly screws up making him an easy target.
- siliconbloggr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6bennyboy371, maybe scrutiny is in order because Arrington recently proclaimed: "I think integrity goes far beyond financial interests; in our subjective world conflicts of interest are nearly impossible to define around money alone." http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/10/25/social-media-club-initiative-on-blogging-ethics/
In addition, he also recently featured a vintage video clip of Digg's very own Kevin Rose, and criticized: "At no point in the clip does Kevin state that he is the founder or in any way connected with Digg." http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/10/26/2004-video-clip-early-digg-demo-by-kevin-rose/
Maybe Arrington should look in the mirror, before talking about blogging ethics.- freedomfightr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0it seems that everyone is missing the point about ethics...
- vvvv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6B-list internet celebrity pissing contest EXPOSED! This is even lamer than all the Wii hype that makes it to the front page.
- GSocling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Its not just me that hates all of this Wii *****? I bury that crap as lame every chance I get...
I like reading TechCrunch just because the text is interesting to read. Sorta like liking playboy because the pictures are purty... - m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So true.
- GSocling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Its not just me that hates all of this Wii *****? I bury that crap as lame every chance I get...
- shmooth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5wait a second - a site that only accepts commenters it approves is bashing a site that only accepts comments it approves? this is like a bad Republican campaign commercial. a bit absurd - a bit pathetic.
- m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1HAHA.
- GoodBrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Sounds like Henry Blodget 2.0
- weiran, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2TechCrunch is the most boring blog I read.
- venukb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"most boring blog I read."
hmm if its boring they why are you "reading" it ?
- venukb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"most boring blog I read."
- NickD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The real story is that a startup that was trying to get coverage on TechCruch was bombing Mike with press releases instead of trying to start a conversation with him and get noticed over time, a way to play by Mike's rules. When he happened to cover a competitor of this startup thought it was to spite them. Then they run over to Nick Douglas crying like a baby, and Nick writes about it because that is what he writes about. Press Releases? How cold and 1.0. Get a clue. The only reason to hate TechCrunch is to recognize their power. Any smart Web 2.0 startup should know that their TechCrunch approach is probably the most important thing they can plan. Love it or hate it, it is the truth.
http://www.crunchnotes.com/?p=300- m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thumbs up.
- tamar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2http://www.pr-squared.com/2006/11/errors_in_the_echo_chamber.html
Step away from the keyboard, boys. - randymorin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm absolutely amazed that people are defending Mike. It's not like he failed to disclose something he should have. That happens all the time and can be forgiven as a mistake. But Mike actually removed the disclosure to cover-up his conflict of interest. That's not forgetful. That's intentionally deceptive. That's not Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is about transparency. How do we hold Microsoft, Yahoo! and Google to these standards and not TechCrunch? Why because he's one of our own. Ridiculous. The worse part is that this is by far not the first time Mike has been caught. A repeating pattern and you still defend his.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by