Comments on: TechCrunch & The Dark Side Of Communities

By: biscuits

biscuits — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 06:12:44 +0000

Um, Michael Jackson was not a pedophile. Certainly no more a pedophile than you are.

By: Andy Beard

Andy Beard — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:16:52 +0000

You know MA never came back to me when I questioned about whether they receive Comscore for free.
Comscore access for a lot of staff costs a fair bit, and Comscore get a lot of PR for being used in preference to other services.

By: Tyler Hurst

Tyler Hurst — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:06:45 +0000

Daniel Brusilovsky is not your normal clueless intern. He’s had a podcast for years, he’s founded Teens in Tech and he’s long written about his love for technology.

I’ve been acquaintances him for about a year now and have heard him speak of working with/at multiple companies near his home, so he certainly isn’t some newbie thrown into the fire.

Yes, TechCrunch should have outed the company, but have you really come to expect that sort of ethical behavior from Arrington?

By: Steven van Vessum

Steven van Vessum — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:02:51 +0000

Good article Lisa. Sharp, yet civilized. Respect!

By: Joe McCarthy

Joe McCarthy — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:08:33 +0000

Not that I would want to hold up our elected officials as paragons of integrity, but according to Answers.com, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 sets the following limits:

People covered by the act must report income derived from various sources, gifts, assets and liabilities, including some transactions, and certain positions held in businesses and in nonprofit organizations. Gifts of food, lodging, transportation, and entertainment are to be reported if gifts from any individual in a calendar year total $250 or more. Other gifts must be reported if gifts from any individual in a calendar year total $100 or more.

That said, I do wonder about the traffic in co-promotion in the Attention Economy ... and whether "gifts in kind" of promotion can or should somehow be factored into assessments of integrity.

By: Francine McKenna

Francine McKenna — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:11:03 +0000

The New York Times did something similar with some freelancers, including a Harvard professor. http://gawker.com/5435129/will-the-times-fire-a-harvard-prof-who-broke-their-freelancer-rules

By: Patricia Skinner

Patricia Skinner — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:02:07 +0000

What caught my eye here (via Twitter) was that you condemned Arrington for publishing hacked documents. I really admire that. In fact I wrote at the time that I too condemn him for that--it shows a total lack of ethics and character in my opinion. Also like you, I haven't read TechCrunch on principal since the Twitter thing. Although we don't have much in common on the surface Lisa, we do have that in common. Thanks for digging up more unsavory truths about TechCrunch.

By: Gil Reich

Gil Reich — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:11:09 +0000

I disagree with you on this one Lisa. You write that he was dismissed because he “accepted compensation … in exchange for coverage about a startup.” But Arrington’s charge (and you haven’t disputed his facts) is much stronger. Arrington says the reporter was caught while soliciting a bribe (the Macbook), which led to an investigation which indicated that he solicited (successfully in at least one case) such bribes in the past. Yes, all of his posts are now suspect and should be removed.
As for not outing which company “almost certainly” did deliver a bribe, I don’t know what legal, ethical, and social concerns led to that decision, and unless you’ve discussed the potential implications with a lawyer I don’t know that you can be sure you wouldn’t have reached the same decision.
As for this decision casting suspicion on the other companies this reporter covered … what? Your heroes at 1938 media essentially sifted through the garbage and found the other companies covered by this kid. They publicized the list. You publicized the list. Why? You could have mentioned that clever internet users can find the names, but you went further and listed the companies whose integrity was put into question because listing them helped you add punch to your post. It’s a list of companies who were covered by a kid later found to have solicited bribes. At least one of these is probably guilty. Many are surely innocent. Should Arrington have listed with probability scores how confident he was in each case? Sorry, the paparazzi in this case who publicized the names and then lamented the lack of decorum isn’t TechCrunch.

By: Lisa Barone

Lisa Barone — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:06:38 +0000

I don’t think it’s specific to these posts. The most ridiculous comments are always the one from anonymous handles. It’s what makes the Web go ’round.

By: Rob Woods

Rob Woods — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:00:55 +0000

Is it just me or both on this post and on Michael Gray's critical post on TechCrunch Is Sarah Lacy Making Sponsored Posts on TechCrunch? are the most testy, childish, petulant criticisms of the posts from commenters with anonymous handles and no links to identify them? If you're going to engage then have the stones to actually engage. TechCrunch employees perhaps?