? VCs are Dead--Maybe Not So Much |
| This Week's Podcast with George Zachary ?
November 01, 2006
TechCrunch's Misdirected Rant
Mike Arrington's screed against the critics of his disclosure practices deals in two of my favorite words: strawman and scapegoat. I only bring it up because the strawman and the scapegoat he's using is the mainstream media. The problem is none of this really helps the debate about disclosure.
At the risk of boiling this down too much, Arrington starts his post by talking about an email from an Australian reporter who he thinks is out to do a hit job. He uses this to extrapolate that traditional media is starting to see "Techcrunch as newsworthy enough to attack." Then he goes on to trot out the old bloggers v. traditional journalism trope, how blogging doesn't fit into neat boxes (sorry, you though financial newsletters were like magazines were like CNBC's Jim Cramer?), and finally that traditional media use their publications to try to "destroy" Techcrunch.
Oh dear. I think Mike Arrington has done a great job at creating an audience for himself and helping redefine media. But let's review what tends to happen. As debates grow online, reporters for the traditional media will begin to follow them and decide to write about them. Of course, the tack they take when they write about them is a different story. But the idea is that they are basically reporting on what's happening.
It seems to me that's what happened here. During the past week, I was hearing about this debate about disclosure and TechCrunch from bloggers and podcasters--not from other traditional reporters. The Australian reporter wasn't creating this debate out of thin air.
So, that's the strawman and the scapegoat that I first mentioned up high.
But the bigger issue seems to be that a certain standard about disclosure evolved (again among some publications) over the past few decades. People who took that standard for granted (again whether it was followed or not), are now the readers and creators of blogs and podcasters. And they're discussing whether that standard should apply to this new medium, or everyone in it, or no one or some people.
This is an important debate. Media is being reshaped and so are the assumptions about it.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference TechCrunch's Misdirected Rant:
? TechCrunch's Arrington Decries MSM "Hit Job" from Global Nerdy
Normally, TechCrunch breaks stories but today it would seem that Mike Arrington's budding technology news empire is the story. A ... [Read More]
Tracked on November 1, 2006 11:30 PM
Thanks for the support, Heather. I think my colleague Asher touched a raw nerve. In response, I posted a restrained reply to Arrington which you can see here: http://blogs.smh.com.au/mashup/archives//007386.html
Posted by: Steve Hutcheon at November 1, 2006 06:52 PM
The interesting thing to me is how writers without corporate policies (in general) attempt to skew interpretations of disclosure in ways that benefit them. Either way, the point is that it's important to abide by a set of basic standards that establish a sense of credibility important to an intended audience of readers. Great article Heather.
Posted by: Brian Solis at November 1, 2006 07:02 PM
There's two kinds of bloggers - bloggers who think that "bloggers" are some different kind of human than others, especially MSM journalists; and those of use who have a passion for writing, write as fair as we can, are devoted to our audience and use the tools of blogging to write.
There's no clash between MSM and bloggers IMHO.
I cover technology issues just like any other media outlet. The difference (a big one) I don't have an editor, editorial board and etc. But never the less at the end of the day both "humans" (blogger or "traditional" journalist) cover what's of interest to them and/or their bosses (in the case of the trad journalist's editor)
Ramon Ray, http://www.smallbiztechnology.com
Posted by: Ramon Ray at November 2, 2006 05:10 AM
what's worse that hyping that which one has financial interest in is dissing that which competes against those interests. i hope mike can walk this razor's edge without getting split in two.
Posted by: rickdog at November 11, 2006 06:29 AM