I think "black and white" is a problem here... I see no reason why Arrington can't be right while McClure can honestly believe that there was nothing wrong with the meeting.<p>Conspiracy theories grow on the basis of black and white, good vs. evil, etc. Outside of programming, aren't we all used to varying shades of gray?
Blogger and witness are two entirely different roles.<p>Witness: I can to the lunch uninvited, people squirmed, a couple of the participants later told me they were uncomfortable with the tenor of the discussions. (From a witness perspective, first-hand facts based on personal knowledge are <i>everything</i> - anything beyond this is hearsay and not to be credited).<p>Blogger: These are the top angel investors in the Valley; I heard second-hand from a couple of the participants that they are upset about valuations, are looking for ways to cooperate to bring them down, and are also looking for ways to cooperate to freeze out VCs as co-investors and to limit the impact of rogue operations like Y Combinator; I checked with my lawyers (and am myself a lawyer) and I can tell you that this stuff, if true, is blatantly illegal and I speculate that this is why everyone was squirming.<p>This latter stuff is the blogger, <i>not</i> the witness, drawing inferences, putting glosses on the limited known facts, speculating, etc. with an overriding goal of making a story significant, newsworthy, and even sensational. This is a legitimate role of a blogger, and is a big part of what makes TC and Mr. Arrington himself sometimes insightful, sometimes arrogant, sometimes maddenlingly infuriating, but almost always interesting to a general readership that takes an intense interest in the subjects being covered.<p>One can "trust" the witness aspects without necessarily giving credence to the blogger glosses that are put on the facts. Mr. Arrington appears to be a straight arrow when recounting facts but watch out for those glosses: they might easily have an agenda behind them as to which the simple facts themselves are secondary (this doesn't mean they can't be true, only that they need to be considered cautiously in light of possible underlying motives).
"If you’re an entrepeneur you believe Arrington."<p>I disagree, I personally think Arrington made a bit too far of a stretch.<p>Did a bunch of super angels get together and talk shop? Definitely. Are they talking about how high valuations are right now? Probably. Once you get into the "concrete plans for how to control the world" it gets a lot sketchier.<p>There's a strong difference between someone saying "company X is raising at a really high valuation, you shouldn't stand for that" and "company X is raising at a really high valuation, don't take it or there will be consequences". Startups talk about investors all of the time, why should the investors be any different?
Whether Arrington was right or wrong, there's probably some truth that angels hate YC. It's based on the whole premise that VC's and angels aren't all their cracked up to be. It would make sense that these "superangel" gatherings would discuss their slipping hold on power and how to get it back.
This looks at the wrong metric. It’s not whether his sources are typically accurate but whether he is generally good at correctly inferring from vague or uncertain evidence. In my experience, analysis is unquestionably the weakest part of TechCrunch. They aren’t bad at getting the facts but when it comes to telling us what those facts mean the wheels come off.<p>If you’re looking to confirm that the people were all in a room together than I guess the little breakdown works. If you’re looking to to see if it adds up to collusion or some Valley equivalent to The Council there are some other factors to weigh.
Surely it's worth noting that the cases he offers as evidence are cases in which <i>we expect eventual proof</i>. The "AngelGate" as he describes it is illegal and if it were true would necessarily go on behind closed doors. Everyone involved would have a lot to lose from any proof getting out that they were involved or that it was even happening.<p>In short, the previous cases made <i>falsifiable predictions</i>. Arrington had strong incentive to report accurately on them because if he was making them up <i>he would eventually get caught</i>. AngelGate does not share this property. If it isn't true, thanks especially to the vagueness of the story, what evidence would be <i>likely</i> to turn up? What if were true. What <i>likely</i> evidence then?<p>It's not a question of whether to believe unverifiable claims. The question is "why pay attention to them at all?" Until one or more angels comes forth and admits the conspiracy (very unlikely, even if true) or Arrington comes forth and admits he made it up, the whole issue is just noise.
last.fm scandal -1 (although I'd award him more than -1 for that :D)<p>Point is, someone else could probably cherry pick situations that make him look wrong.<p>Everything Arrington writes should be taken with a large dose of salt; because he is, essentially, a gossip journalist. And even before the internet you did not believe every word a gossip journalist speaketh :)<p>Often he is right. Sometimes he is spectacularly wrong. Sometimes, and I think in this case, he gets a rough truth and then tarts it up to make a bigger story (either deliberately or subconsciously, I couldn't say)<p>Bottom line is; there is no point to this post.
One needs to apply the Arrington filter, which is a little complex.<p>For example: I immediately thought the Facebook phone story was link bait (and I still do). However, it seems there was more truth in it that I would've credited (based on a subsequent interview with Zuckerberg). Such stories drive page views but they bring Arrington's credibility into question, leading to debates like this ("do we believe him?").<p>With this story, the fact that the meeting happened I think is undisputed. Rather than more typically quoting an "anonymous source" he staked his <i>personal</i> reputation and used his own eyewitness account. So I don't doubt that part at all.<p>After that, it gets murky. Arrington's claims of collusion and price-fixing are probably a stretch based on the evidence but it has touched off McClure, Wilson and others. So there is <i>something</i> there. In the very least both sides (entrepreneurs and angels) are sensitive to the issue.<p>I also don't believe this is a binary problem: one of McClure and Arrington is right and the other is wrong. They can both be right, both be wrong or, more likely, both be somewhat right and somewhat wrong.<p>For one thing, people can believe they've done nothing wrong when they really have (note: I'm not claiming the super-angels have done anything wrong).<p>This is somewhat reminiscent of the DoJ investigation into anti-poaching agreements: both that and the angel collusion allegations seem motivated from cooperation but that doesn't mean they did nothing wrong.<p>TL:DR Arrington's observations are believable. His conclusions are premature.
Michael Arrington is a writer, not an oracle of truth. Regardless of whether he gets it right, people are still going to go to his site. In fact, the further he spins the story, the more people he gets to visit TechCrunch.
The goals of a business are to maximize returns and minimize risk.<p>Drinks and casual conversation are not a particularly efficient way acomplish that.<p>Though maybe the Boy Scouts offer a Gangsta' merit badge.