Counterpoint, the NY Times has an ethics policy that would never have allowed anything like TechCrunch (even before the newly announced investment fund plan!).
"44. Staff members may not engage in financial counseling (except through the articles they write). They may not manage money for others, offer investment advice, or help operate an investment company of any sort, with or without pay. They may, however, help family members with ordinary financial planning and serve as executors or administrators of estates of relatives and friends and as court-appointed conservators and guardians."
"They may not offer ideas or proposals to people who figure in their coverage or make investments in productions in their field. (Food writers and editors may not invest in restaurants.) "
Etc etc.
The New York Times company owns a lot of stuff. So does AOL. AOL running an investment fund isn't shady in the least. Having an employee who covers tech startups on one of your media properties run a fund for you that invests in tech startups... Big difference. You don't see whoever's job it is to invest in Automattic at the NY Times out there writing A1 on the technology page.
The main difference here is there is a strict firewall at the New York Times Company and not at TechCrunch. Forget disclosure, the NY Times would never let Mike have the startups beat in the first place because of his personal investment activity. Make that professional investment activity and it's just that much more unacceptable.
The New York Times already has a way around this through Op-Ed columnists. Thus, it's okay for someone like Warren Buffett, Robert Reich, or someone the Times hires on spec to completely ignore these policies. If TechCrunch were to adhere to the Times' standard, then Arrington might alternatively be either an Op-Ed columnist paid on spec for his pieces of writing, a reporter paid to do a job, or a staff editorial writer.
The reality is that this is a distinction without difference today (especially when editorial is mixed with reporting). Disclosure should be part of every article, op-ed, or editorial. As far as I'm concerned, TechCrunch is actually setting a more rigorous standard than the Times is for future media.
Opinion is different than news. Op-Ed columnists don't get the inside track on news that helps them make money and make money for others. Similarly, reporters stay off the opinion page. It's not just a matter of disclosing, the whole concept is against the policy of any reputable media organization (not that I'm of the opinion TechCrunch is, but that's what this is about).
The NYT doesn't let their reporters trade on companies they cover. Would it seem strange to you if a NYT reporter was hired to simultaneously manage a venture fund to invest in companies that are on his beat?
Comments
Counterpoint, the NY Times has an ethics policy that would never have allowed anything like TechCrunch (even before the newly announced investment fund plan!).
http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html#keeping
"44. Staff members may not engage in financial counseling (except through the articles they write). They may not manage money for others, offer investment advice, or help operate an investment company of any sort, with or without pay. They may, however, help family members with ordinary financial planning and serve as executors or administrators of estates of relatives and friends and as court-appointed conservators and guardians."
"They may not offer ideas or proposals to people who figure in their coverage or make investments in productions in their field. (Food writers and editors may not invest in restaurants.) "
Etc etc.
The New York Times company owns a lot of stuff. So does AOL. AOL running an investment fund isn't shady in the least. Having an employee who covers tech startups on one of your media properties run a fund for you that invests in tech startups... Big difference. You don't see whoever's job it is to invest in Automattic at the NY Times out there writing A1 on the technology page.
The main difference here is there is a strict firewall at the New York Times Company and not at TechCrunch. Forget disclosure, the NY Times would never let Mike have the startups beat in the first place because of his personal investment activity. Make that professional investment activity and it's just that much more unacceptable.
The New York Times already has a way around this through Op-Ed columnists. Thus, it's okay for someone like Warren Buffett, Robert Reich, or someone the Times hires on spec to completely ignore these policies. If TechCrunch were to adhere to the Times' standard, then Arrington might alternatively be either an Op-Ed columnist paid on spec for his pieces of writing, a reporter paid to do a job, or a staff editorial writer.
The reality is that this is a distinction without difference today (especially when editorial is mixed with reporting). Disclosure should be part of every article, op-ed, or editorial. As far as I'm concerned, TechCrunch is actually setting a more rigorous standard than the Times is for future media.
Opinion is different than news. Op-Ed columnists don't get the inside track on news that helps them make money and make money for others. Similarly, reporters stay off the opinion page. It's not just a matter of disclosing, the whole concept is against the policy of any reputable media organization (not that I'm of the opinion TechCrunch is, but that's what this is about).
The NYT doesn't let their reporters trade on companies they cover. Would it seem strange to you if a NYT reporter was hired to simultaneously manage a venture fund to invest in companies that are on his beat?