Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

Maybe it's just me, but millionaires fighting other millionaires for WordPress admin status makes for little sympathy. I don't work at AOL and don't need to take part in their office politics.

This is so much fun. It seems that we now have a fight between two divas -- Arrington and Huffington. It is one of those fights where you do not care who wins, you just hope for lots of bloodshed. It's like a Raiders Broncos game!<p>So Mike Arrington makes a stand for editorial independence. Now for those of you new to this whole discussion, we should note that Mike editorial independence Arrington started this whole brouhaha by the obvious and blatant conflicts of interest he got himself in. Namely he was investing in companies he covers and now is starting a fund that would seem to be dedicated to investing in companies he covers.<p>After the ny times called him out on the conflict, it was obvious that TechCrunch's claim of it being an independent news source would be utterly laughable. And that probably prompted Ariana to make her move.<p>And now Arrington is making a bold stand by resigning in the name of "editorial independence". Probably he did not have a choice but to resign, not because of editorial independence from Ariana Huffington, but because of editorial independence from his own conflicts of interest. But by making this stand he very cleverly tried to divert the attention from his own fuckups and poison the waters for whoever Ariana tries to appoint to lead TechCrunch.<p>Now I would like to say I am not on Ariana's side. I wanted to point out the blatant hypocracy of Arringrton, but Ariana's career is so full of double dealing and questionable behavior that I doubt TechCrunch would be better with her. Like I said, it is the Raiders playing the Broncos, and I am not choosing sides just enjoying the violence.

Arrington frames it as a matter of "editorial independence" and doesn't talk about ethics and conflict of interests.<p>However, I don't see how anyone else (and least of all, the owners of TechCrunch) can ignore those two matters - and the resultant impact on the credibility of TechCrunch.<p>Ultimately, Arrington made a conscious decision to sell TechCrunch to AOL. He made another conscious decision to become the founder of CrunchFund.<p>The two-option ultimatum in his post seems like simple posturing. It seems like he is ready to finally leave TechCrunch, but doesn't want to frame it as a simple matter of leaving TechCrunch to become a full-time investor (who also blogs - the Fred Wilson model).

Most people don't realize this, but The New York Times is a big corporation like AOL (with sometimes similarish market caps).<p>- The New York Times has invested in technology companies like AdKeeper, Automattic, Ongo, Brightcove, Federated Media, and funds like Betaworks (which is in dozens of startups in all kinds of fields). Have their reporters ever received tips and information about upcoming companies and tech launches because of these connections? Do they get written about more often than your average startup? You better believe it. If you look through their coverage of these companies they imperfectly acknowledge their involvement (even the ones they've invested in directly).<p>Federated Media (2 years after an investment by New York Times): <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/technology/30online.html?sq=federated%20media&#38;st=Search&#38;scp=1&#38;pagewanted=print" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/technology/30online.html?s...</a><p>BrightCove article that was published without due diligence and later corrected eight days later: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/business/23corner.html?sq=bright%20cove&#38;st=cse&#38;scp=1&#38;pagewanted=print" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/business/23corner.html?sq=...</a><p>GroupMe article where they mention that the company has taken $12 million but neglect to mention they were part of the round through Betaworks: <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/skype-plans-to-buy-messaging-start-up-groupme/?pagemode=print" rel="nofollow">http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/skype-plans-to-buy-...</a><p>These were just three examples I pulled quickly (I sincerely apologize for using these companies as examples since this has nothing to do with them). Do your own search for any New York Times invested or Betaworks company on nytimes.com and you'll see what I mean. Does this change their coverage of other competing tech companies?<p>Funnily enough, the best resource to follow these connections is Crunchbase: <a href="http://www.crunchbase.com/company/newyorktimes" rel="nofollow">http://www.crunchbase.com/company/newyorktimes</a><p>- The New York Times has their own internal division that develops software products and services that other publishing companies and media companies buy. Does this change their coverage on competing technologies and competitors?<p>- The New York Times owns a diverse set of businesses in competition with Aol's current strategy including about.com. They also own a chunk of the Boston Red Sox.<p>I'm going to be blunt. I don't think the New York Times is shady enough to let this change their coverage despite their obvious conflicts of interest (in the BrightCove article in their 8 day later correction stresses that "The New York Times Company owns a small stake of less than five percent in Brightcove". I doubt Michael Arrington owns 5% of any startup he's written about). And since TechCrunch has had (if anything) a policy of more transparency and disclosure than the Times has had, I can't for the life of me see what all the ruckus is about.<p>My disclosure: I am tangentially connected to most of these companies by investment, friendship, or business relationships and I think the world of them. OwnLocal also works with all kinds of newspapers and publishers as a matter of course.

Why do I have the feeling that <i>we</i> (the public) aren't the real target for these posts? This all has the feel of a giant power-play within AOL that we are only one side of.<p>I know that this is TechCrunch, but do we really have to be exposed to the drama that is normally reserved for office politics? Or is this all just an attempt to give Arrington, et al. cover for when this whole thing just blows up?<p>Or, it could all be for the pageviews... has it been a slow news month?

Am I the only one who sides with Arrington? I feel that TechCrunch has taken editorial ethics seriously so far, and see no reason why this shouldn't continue.

John Gruber wins for the best tl;dr I've seen of this drama yet:<p>&#62; "I Sold My Company (to a Bunch of Idiots) and Expected to Still Maintain Control Over It."<p><a href="http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/09/06/aol-techcrunch" rel="nofollow">http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/09/06/aol-techcrunch</a>

I briefly worked for AOL on the Winamp team right after they acquired both Winamp and Time Warner. The story that an AOL deal ends up in a total cluster fuck is 10 years old.<p>With any knowledge of recent history, it is boggling anyone thought this acquisition would work and I don't believe for a second Arrington is writing in earnest.

Most of the editors at Engadget, another tech blog owned by AOL have left publicly citing AOL's editorial policy. I am surprised by the lack of support that Hacker News community is showing to Arrington. Even in the post announcing the sale to AOL, there was clear stress about the editorial independence of TC. Arrington always has had a weird investment policy, but to his credit, he has maintained a strict transparency about his posts. For people who are alleging what happens to those companies which are competitors, won't the same logic apply to Fred Wilson or Om Malik, both of whom are VCs as well as popular bloggers.<p>I do think Arrington should not have named his fund CrunchFund. Techcrunch runs a database about companies and people involved in the tech industry called Crunchbase. This brings us to a different question. Michael earlier had a plan for a tablet called CrunchPad, which didn't materialize when he had a fall-out with his technical partner. Does the brand name belong to the company or to the founder ? No matter who owns the trademark and other legal stuff, I believe it should stay with the company.

Arrington &#38; Armstrong created CrunchFund as partners and the controversy is purely Arrington's doing.<p>This latest breathlessly pissed off post demonstrates Arrington can still post anything he likes to TechCrunch.<p>So why not write a clear and concise explanation on TC to begin with?<p>I'd submit that Arrington is ready to leave TC to focus on investing, and there's no better way to do that than with a massive page-view heavy controversy.

This makes me suspect that Arrington is one of those people who every now and then digs in his heels and has a complete inability to see things from his opponent's point of view. For example, here he does not even bother to address what seems to me to be the central issue (journalistic conflict of interest).

It's called "selling out" for a reason. If Michael Arrington is genuinely surprised that an acquirer is not holding to the sweet, sweet promises it made him at acquisition time, then he has no business being a tech journalist.<p>The correct time for this kind of acute episode of journalistic integrity was before cashing the AOL check, not after. He was under no pressure to relinquish his independence.<p>More likely he sees an opportunity to head for the exit with at least one suitcase still full of money.

I'd like to see mass exodus of writers and creating their own brand new site. Sounds familiar.

It's the law of cycles. Techcrunch has had a good run, but in the internet era, a fast paced blog can't last forever. See the downhill progress of Engadget and Gizmodo. Time to make room for a new king of the hill.

I think Arrington for got Option 3:<p>AOL says F<i></i>* You Arrington, does what they want since they bought tech crunch and they own it. The past shareholders have no ability to recall the buyout almost a year later and say nevermind we want our company back.<p>Reality is Arrington sold, Arrington started a new fund. People think this new fund will interfere with Arrington's "Editorial Independence" therefore they claim he will be gone.<p>At the end of the day it just does not matter that much, If Mike is who he thinks he is he could just go start another blog tomorrow and gain all the traction he wanted. His non-compete (if applicable) is probably non-enforceable after the first twelve months anyhow.<p>If he is not then he should just go back to his new fund and invest in some startups loudly (which is the Arrington fashion) which is probably what he will do best

So presumably this includes the possibility of writing 100% positive articles on CrunchFund funded companies and 100% negative articles on their competitors....

Who didn't see this coming 11 months ago? Many founders seem to regret the sale of their baby...Arrington is no different. Acquisitions are tough when talented people are involved and it's no longer their ship to run.

I know I will be voted down, but this reminds me of PGs comments on the AirBbB threads.

Like Arrington/TC or not, it is hard to deny that since the AOL acquisition that TC has gone above and beyond to make sure they assert their independence.<p>It's very interesting to see the internal politics spill out on the main page, and it's fascinating to see the struggle between the competing entities after an acquisition.<p>I think many/most other media acquisitions would have squashed this - imagine any of News Corp media outlets EVER writing/reporting a negative story about News Corp, and the same would go for NBC and MSNBC of GE, and all the others.<p>I must say, although it can be construed as just grandstanding and attention grabbing, Mike and the TC team have gotten a few extra points from me over these episodes.<p>Sure, they may have overdone it at times, but it couldn't have been easy for Arrington to stand by and watch his reporters str8 up tell his new overlords "Fuck Off" (literally - one of TC's bloggers tweeted that, can't remember which one).<p>Glad to see them publicly wrestle with their independence. There is something brave about doing it in public.

First off, I should say one thing. I am not a fan of Arrington. In fact, I really dislike him and think he's an over-arrogant POS.<p>However, I do enjoy his site and prefer its raw ethical nature. They promised editorial independence and this should remain true. I have to side with Arrington. That being said, I don't believe pushing this issue publicly like this is going to help one bit. I'd bet that AOL sees this post and considers it insubordination leaving them with no choices but let him go (if that's even possible?)<p>One thing I hate about the "big guys" in news is that it is the news "they" want you to hear, and I hate that. If Arrington leaves TechCrunch, and the ethics behind TechCrunch leave with him, I will no longer visit the site.

Glad more people are getting introduced to the term editorial independence.

So instead of writing this message in an email to the powers at be at AOL, he writes a blog post about it, which is certain to escalate the situation?<p>Why?

I'm reminded of the link posted last week [1] arguing that founders make better CEOs. TechCrunch was a valuable asset for AOL to pick up precisely because of the way it was organized and managed.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/steve-jobss-law-why-founders-make-the-best-leaders/244439/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/steve-jo...</a>

This whole saga is nothing short of confusing. I guess the owners of TC lost sight of the picture when they saw a nice financial exit. They've covered AOL long enough to know how bad things might get. What's really interesting is how AOL managed stay alive all these years and even acquire properties with life in them.

<i>If Aol cannot accept either of these options, and no other creative solution can be found, I cannot be a part of TechCrunch going forward.</i><p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure AOL just told Arrington they didn't <i>want</i> him to have any significant role at TechCrunch going forward.

Pile on Arrington?<p>Techcrunch is an interesting read now and then and certainly draws people that love what they do and others that don't. Lots of trolls anytime Steve Gilmour or MG Siegler post, it is the nature of the Web.<p>This very much seems like a spat between Arriana Huffington and Michael Arrington, both of which have very public forums to address their sides. At the end of the day, if the paperwork signed says that TC was to have "editorial independence" from Huffington Post, then AOL needs to address that. If it doesn't, then the parties involved need to figure out how to salve the assorted egos.<p>The CrunchFund thing? I get the impression that Armstrong and Arrington get along and Armstrong/AOL see the Crunchfund as a way of getting AOL (event at a distance) more involved in developing new companies. Does it make things more complicated? Probably.<p>It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

He already has editorial independence. What he wants is independence to run a venture fund. It's a crucial distinction, and one AOL's lawyers can surely make -- convincingly -- in court.

Does anyone else think that techcrunch has a lot of drama for no good reason? I used to like reading it a while ago, now I just don't care for it.

AOL have moved to ensure that TechCrunch maintains its editorial independence... from a venture fund.

The solution is obvious: CrunchFund buys back a majority stake in TC from AOL for $20 million.<p>AOL now owns TC indirectly, as Mike is the middle man.

Leaving editorial Independence aside, if Arrington was fired from TC and AOL, how is he able to write this post? Sounds all like a sham!

Get stuffed already.

I wonder how much of this whole brouhaha was staged.

wait for ThisIsMyNextCrunch to launch in the next few months.

drama queens

"Trolls trolling trolls."

The page loaded completely empty for me, even after enabling every prompted script domain via NoScript. Curious, I checked the source, and it looks like the page essentially consists of script elements within an unclosed head tag:<p><a href="http://pastebin.com/JkVyL9tb" rel="nofollow">http://pastebin.com/JkVyL9tb</a><p>sigh...