Tag Archives: Michael Arrington

CrunchFund and Why We Care

Over the summer, I wrote a post on Ventureminded.me entitled “The TechCrunch Machine” in which I railed against Arrington, his conflicts of interest, and how the site had lost its way, particularly how it shifted from highlighting up-and-coming startups to focusing on larger tech companies. Arrington has long been criticized for being a Silicon Valley insider writing about startups while simultaneously being an active investor. More recently, MG Siegler’s pseudo-departure from TechCrunch to join Arrington at CrunchFund raised some eyebrows as well. But why?

Chris Dixon tweeted that Michael Moritz was a former journalist and became a successful VC, so perhaps Siegler would follow a similar route. However, there’s a major difference between the guys at CrunchFund and Moritz. The latter stepped away from his journalism career at TIME to pursue a career in venture capital at Sequoia. Arrington, and to a certain extent Siegler, is still very much entrenched in unearthing stories, breaking news, and relying on sources. All of these things are not only critical to being successful at writing about startups, but are also vital to sourcing deals. So why can’t they do both and just disclose when they’re writing about an investment (as Arrington has done and continues to do)? Simply, when someone is talking to Arrington or Siegler, is he/she speaking to the writer or the investor – who knows?

In my opinion, it all comes down to a simple distinction between bloggers and journalists. The guys at CrunchFund want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be called “journalists” to have that official seal of approval from the media community, but they want to be renegade bloggers in order to continue investing without a conflict of interest cropping up all the time. It just can’t happen. A journalist must be completely impartial. For example, no CNBC employee is allowed to hold stock of any kind – even sports business reporter Darren Rovell (who is also the source of this statement). Why should a tech writer be allowed to invest in companies (whether he writes about his investments or not)?A “blogger,” on the other hand, is unofficial; it’s a person who dabbles in writing online but has some other main profession. No one has a problem with Fred Wilson blogging on a daily basis because no one would ever confuse his style or content with actual journalism, and he’s not breaking news by relying on inside sources. Arrington and Siegler, however, are journalists all the time – whether they want to be or not.

For the sake of transparency, impartiality, and a host of other reasons, Arrington needs to shut down Uncrunched or CrunchFund. Something tells me he’d be more likely to part with the former.

The TechCrunch Machine

Last week, the frequently polarizing Michael Arrington wrote a post about how TechCrunch often “blindsides companies” by writing breaking news about them without reaching out to the entrepreneur or company itself first. Of course, at the center of attention this time, is Caterina Fake and her most recent startup. Despite Arrington’s reaching out to her to ask about a round of financing she supposedly raised, Fake decided to break the news herself on her own blog. While Arrington has done a lot of great things for startups, it’s nice to finally hear of someone “standing up to him” (even if that wasn’t Fake’s intention).

When TechCrunch first launched, not only was it a fantastic resource for readers but also entrepreneurs. Readers, particularly outsiders to the startup world, could gain “insider access” and learn about the happenings in the Valley. Entrepreneurs were able to get exposure for their startup. However, over time, the mission of TechCrunch has been lost, in my opinion.

Yes, it still is a fairly good resource for people to learn about tech and startups (but there are numerous other blogs which do this comparably well). However, I feel as though the site has become “too commercial.” There’s a reason the “What’s Hot” bar at the top of the page includes: Android, Apple, Facebook, Google, Groupon, Microsoft, Twitter, Zynga. The little entrepreneur has been pushed aside for the most part. An appearance on TechCrunch has become more about marketing than anything else, and the up-and-coming startup has become an afterthought. However, startups are very much afraid to “bite the hand that feeds them” because they don’t want to become the next Fake in the eyes of Arrington.

The other main flaw with TechCrunch is more a symptom of our society now than anything else. However, it featured prominently in Arrington’s most recent post, so I feel it’s worth addressing. That is, the idea of “breaking news.” In our 24/7 news cycle Twitter world, everyone becomes a journalist who can scoop any story. Not only is TechCrunch competing against every other tech blog and the entrepreneurs themselves, but they’re also competing against you and me. If we at Venturebent hear of an amazing new startup in NYC or a crazy development at a startup here, we could potentially break the news before Arrington. And frankly, that scares the shit out of him because his competitive advantage has long been that he has the most connections. Granted our audience is microscopic compared to TechCrunch’s (for now), but losing out on a scoop damages one’s credibility, especially if that’s what you hang your hat on. Consequently, Arrington’s trigger finger has become quicker and quicker over time to the point that he’s almost adopted the phrase, “ready, fire, aim.”

Despite all the TechCrunch / Arrington bashing, I still continue to follow both on Twitter and check the site on a daily basis. I just wish they’d go back to their roots, rather than continuing to evolve into this TechCrunch Machine with Arrington at the helm.