Mathew's comments - Latest Comments in Conflict of interest, Web 2.0-style

Re: Conflict of interest, Web 2.0-style

HMTKSteve — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 09:49:10 -0000

Would it be a conflict of interest if someone from Ford Motors started up an after market parts company?

Is this only a conflict of interests because they are pushing a company that was started by a former employee?

We are talking about journalism and reporting. If it is news it should be reported.

Re: Conflict of interest, Web 2.0-style

Mathew — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:26:10 -0000

I realize Mike has had some issues in the past with disclosure of conflicts, but I get the impression he has gotten better at disclosing them -- certainly a lot better than Bambi was at disclosing hers. You're free to disagree, of course.

Re: Conflict of interest, Web 2.0-style

Randy Charles Morin — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:46:44 -0000

Mathew, that completely untrue. Mike has been caught too many times trying to conceal his conflicts of interest.
http://www.valleywag.com/tech/techcrunch/disclo...

Re: Conflict of interest, Web 2.0-style

Mathew — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:57:17 -0000

Well, Randy, I can think of a few things that make it different -- one is that Mike has said he doesn't take shares in companies, as he mentioned in the ZDNet story, and he declares his conflicts openly. As far as I can tell, Bambi has done the former and not done the latter.

Re: Conflict of interest, Web 2.0-style

Randy Charles Morin — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:14:38 -0000

What new? How is this different than TechCrunch? Mike brags that conflict of interest is what makes TechCrunch great. You link to him all the time? How come you aren't asking Mike to leave TechCrunch?

Re: Conflict of interest, Web 2.0-style

Mathew — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:33:50 -0000

Thanks for the comment, David -- I'm aware of that from Matt's post and others. If anything though, that makes the conflict worse.

Re: Conflict of interest, Web 2.0-style

David — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:21:24 -0000

Matthew
She isn't an investor in Vator, it is her company. She started it, and got Peter as an investor and has been out actively raising money. That part CNET and WSJ got wrong.