Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluedanieru | Hacker News Reader

>Mr. Arrington has often said that transparency and full disclosure keep things above-board when his blog writes about companies he has some financial stake in.

Isn't this sort of thinking half-bullshit? It's certainly more ethical than writing a glowing review of some startup without revealing you have a stake in it (which borders on criminal), but the truly ethical course of action is to not write about it at all.

A statement admitting you are biased doesn't negate your bias, and leaving it to your readers to decide if you're sincere or full of shit doesn't make for good writing.

View on HN

It's total bullshit. There's no half way.

You don't get to pick and choose which ethics you adhere to. Arrington's dodge has always been "I'm not a journalist," so he shouldn't have to adhere to journalistic ethics. But if you report on news, you're a reporter, simple as that. It doesn't matter whether your news organization was founded 150 years ago or 5 years ago, or whether you publish with electrons or dead trees. Journalistic ethics are there for a reason, particularly in business journalism.

I mean, I'd like to exempt myself from the cumbersome ethical restrictions pertaining to murder and robbery, but simply declaring I'm above all that doesn't make it so.

I wonder if you have the same criticism of Jon Stewart, who has also frequently defended himself by saying, "I'm a comedian, not a journalist."

Jon Stewart is also a journalist. Saying he's not doesn't make it not so.

But unless Stewart was elected to the Senate when I wasn't paying attention, he doesn't have the ethical conflict that someone who reports on the technology business while simultaneously investing in it has.

(I'll pre-empt your next likely counterpoint by pointing out that having a point of view is not the same as an ethical conflict of interest, and that opinion has always had a place in the discipline of journalism.)

Oh god I'd love to see Jon Stewart in the Senate. Stewart for Senate 2012!

The sad part is Stewart covers news better than most so called journalists.

And with less bias.

This conflict of interest is precisely why he resigned. I'm not convinced a personal stake necessarily makes for uninteresting writing, though.

Fred Wilson at http://www.avc.com writes very interesting stuff about startups he has a stake in, showing it's possible, but it definitely has to be considered whenever you read something by him.

Thats a personal blog. I would hope and expect a VC to write about the companies he has invested in on his personal blog. Cheerleading and all.

I'm not convinced that utter fiction makes for uninteresting writing, but it certainly lacks value as journalism.

> I'm not convinced a personal stake necessarily makes for uninteresting writing, though.

I don't think the objection is it's uninteresting, rather that it's unethical.

Resigned, but still writing for the site, which is continued bullshit.

That's true. Arrington has also never shied away from using his site to try and destroy people he had a personal vendetta with. I don't believe there was ever a hint of journalistic integrity involved at TC, it has always felt like a deeply personal and opinionated blog. While there is nothing wrong with this in of itself, the problem was that Arrington is extremely well-connected and influential - which made Techcrunch effectively a tool designed to bully people. TC's attitude has never been friendly either, I can't recall a single interaction with me or anyone else where TC staff have not behaved like total dicks.

Well, no, the truly ethical thing is not to let the fact that you have a stake in a company affect whether or not you will write about it. Not writing about it completely is biased the other way.

Strictly speaking, writing something negative would be biased the other way, while writing nothing is neutral. But I see your point that not allowing the fact of it to change your behavior at all is the perfectly ethical solution. It is also impossible for humans to accomplish (and moreover to even know for certain they've accomplished it), so it's a moot point. There is also something to be said for avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, which yours doesn't address.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com