-
Website
http://www.mathewingram.com/work -
Original page
http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/05/14/arrington-and-wired-keyboards-at-dawn/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
scrawledinwax
23 comments · 1 points
-
webomatica
35 comments · 5 points
-
howardlindzon
46 comments · 69 points
-
JoeDuck
57 comments · 1 points
-
Karoli
32 comments · 39 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
In defence of newspapers and serendipity
2 weeks ago · 43 comments
-
Are independent bloggers an endangered species?
2 weeks ago · 8 comments
-
Bloggers, trust, MSM and correction fluid
1 week ago · 2 comments
-
Video: My panel with Shirky and Keen
1 month ago · 2 comments
-
Why media outlets want Facebook Connect
2 weeks ago · 1 comment
-
In defence of newspapers and serendipity
The irony for me is that the apparent conflicts Wired cites are pretty much a non-issue. There probably aren't going to be hyper-critical posts about DanceJam on TechCrunch, but it's not like he's on the board at Google and letting that shape his analysis of the Yahoo! / Microsoft debacle. The real issue is that TechCrunch seems to default to the low / easy road instead of stepping up and embracing its opportunity to make Wired and even more mainstream business publications irrelevant. That this debate has descended into a "he started it / she started it" pissing match that appeals only to a tiny minority of TC's potential audience makes it still more embarrassing.
perhaps isn't the best gauge for whether it's a good thing to do from
a business standpoint. At the same time, however, one of the appealing
things about blogs as a source of news and commentary is that they are
run by human beings, and occasionally that shows through -- if they
just turn into replicas of stuffy print magazines then where's the fun
in that?
think you are right. The unspoken point, of course, is that slinging
mud or ad hominem attacks draws traffic -- Mike knows it, and I'm sure
Wired knows it too. Not as many people are likely to go out of their
way to read a post that is balanced or fair, and full of tolerance and
sympathy. Sad but true.
If you're relying on remnant inventory through ad networks, then you could argue that traffic is all that matters. But if you want to get serious about selling your own advertising at much higher rates, then it's far better to capture a really strong audience that's there because they buy in to the content, not because they like watching the train wreck.
So in the long run I think TechCrunch is sacrificing credibility AND revenue on the altar of low quality page views.
at the same time, his "fuck you" tweet was a heck of a lot more mean-spirited than the wired piece. there's no place for that sort of gutter languague.
Should people report on start ups where they invest, know someone etc? I think some standards should be put in play that at least a third party does the review vs. the individual who has invested but if everyone who knows personal or invests personal in any given start up wasn't allowed to comment, pretty much techmeme would have no content.
post about the same topic at ZDNet
(http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=8817), in which he talked about how at
least with the blogosphere, conflicts of interest and other sorts of
interpersonal matters that affect what gets written are relatively
transparent, and therefore easier to either discount or keep in mind
when the content is being read. I see that as an overall plus.
Both authors driven (perhaps in some part subconciously) by our human tendency to watch fights more than reasoned debate. On TV, blowhards like Sean Hannity are watched more and paid much more than Charlie Rose who does some fo the best TV journalism in decades. The slope is steep and we are all sliding down fast, so might as well enjoy it.