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).
The "journalist conflict of interest" is something for individual journalists to disclose. The true central issue here is the promise (which may even have been made under contract) of editorial independence for TechCrunch. If the writers then fail to disclose conflicts of interest, that's an ethical position for then, not now.
You seem to think this is AOL enforcing journalistic standards. Try reading the whole saga again. The blowtorch that ignited this wasn't CrunchFund itself (which AOL backed), but AOL CEO Tim Armstrong (NOT Arrington) disclaiming journalistic integrity:
“TechCrunch is a different property and they have different standards… we have a traditional understanding of journalism with the exception of TechCrunch.”
This is a disaster of AOL's making, not Arrington's.
Seems to me like he is making a hands-off comment with regards to TechCrunch, as in - we wouldn't allow an editor of a regular property to invest in companies they write about, but TechCrunch has different rules.
Perhaps it is, but having a member of the senior staff also running an investment fund that invests in the very subjects of the TechCrunch site is a huge integrity issue. Armstrong seemed to be dodging the question to me, a way to avoid having to answer for what Arrington is up to.
I kinda see what you're getting at, but it doesn't really make any sense. Armstrong was actively working with Arrington on the fund. It wouldn't be answering for Arrington (or at least not just Arrington), but for himself and AOL as a whole.
This wasn't something that Arrington just announced out of the blue that AOL has to scramble to react to. Armstrong was active in setting the whole thing up, and AOL was investing in the fund. They knew this was happening way in advance, and announced it with Arrington. Then everything went to hell. To whatever degree this could possibly be construed as Arrington's fault, it must also be seen as at least equally AOL's fault.
I agree wholeheartedly on that last point - it's all of their fault for not making sure that a giant firewall existed between Arrington and TechCrunch as a part of this announcement.
It's obvious that he has certain limits to his personal competence like us all and is unable to either seek or comprehend third-party advice once he's past the point of no return. This is not the first time that we've seen his personal drama detailed in public and it really detracts from the brand. Off the top of my head I'll cite the tablet project, Airbnb debacle, Calacanis just name a few.
If Aol is listening they need to put distance between themselves and Arrington, not get closer.
Comments
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).
The "journalist conflict of interest" is something for individual journalists to disclose. The true central issue here is the promise (which may even have been made under contract) of editorial independence for TechCrunch. If the writers then fail to disclose conflicts of interest, that's an ethical position for then, not now.
You seem to think this is AOL enforcing journalistic standards. Try reading the whole saga again. The blowtorch that ignited this wasn't CrunchFund itself (which AOL backed), but AOL CEO Tim Armstrong (NOT Arrington) disclaiming journalistic integrity:
“TechCrunch is a different property and they have different standards… we have a traditional understanding of journalism with the exception of TechCrunch.”
This is a disaster of AOL's making, not Arrington's.
Where is he disclaiming journalistic integrity?
Seems to me like he is making a hands-off comment with regards to TechCrunch, as in - we wouldn't allow an editor of a regular property to invest in companies they write about, but TechCrunch has different rules.
I don't understand. How is saying "TechCrunch doesn't have to have journalistic integrity" not disclaiming journalistic integrity for TC?
Perhaps it is, but having a member of the senior staff also running an investment fund that invests in the very subjects of the TechCrunch site is a huge integrity issue. Armstrong seemed to be dodging the question to me, a way to avoid having to answer for what Arrington is up to.
I kinda see what you're getting at, but it doesn't really make any sense. Armstrong was actively working with Arrington on the fund. It wouldn't be answering for Arrington (or at least not just Arrington), but for himself and AOL as a whole.
This wasn't something that Arrington just announced out of the blue that AOL has to scramble to react to. Armstrong was active in setting the whole thing up, and AOL was investing in the fund. They knew this was happening way in advance, and announced it with Arrington. Then everything went to hell. To whatever degree this could possibly be construed as Arrington's fault, it must also be seen as at least equally AOL's fault.
I agree wholeheartedly on that last point - it's all of their fault for not making sure that a giant firewall existed between Arrington and TechCrunch as a part of this announcement.
How is it anything but obvious that TechCrunch doesn't operate under a "traditional understanding of journalism"?
It's obvious that he has certain limits to his personal competence like us all and is unable to either seek or comprehend third-party advice once he's past the point of no return. This is not the first time that we've seen his personal drama detailed in public and it really detracts from the brand. Off the top of my head I'll cite the tablet project, Airbnb debacle, Calacanis just name a few.
If Aol is listening they need to put distance between themselves and Arrington, not get closer.