This is abhorrently unimportant drama. TC has been a trash rag from the start, and their flaming dramatic burnout is just as trash as everything else they've ever published. Go away already. This is publicity coup 101 shit. DIAF.
Sure, it can be trashy at times but it plays a very useful role in the Startp ecosystem. If it didn't exist then either Startups would get a lot less attention or some other publication would fill its place.
I think startups getting less attention is - on the balance - a bad thing. If a publication other than TC was publication-of-record then it is difficult to say if it would be better or worse.
Arrington did a media startup, cashed out and was going to run a VC fund. What's wrong with that?
The details in between are what matter. I think most people are just put off by his constant need to interject himself into the stories.
I thought - for example - the whole CrunchPad thing was quite interesting. It was an interesting product, and the posts gave a lot of insight into how hardware businesses worked.
References:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/02/20/did-lastfm-just-hand-ov...
http://blog.last.fm/2009/02/23/techcrunch-are-full-of-shit
http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/deny-this-lastfm/
I don't see how that is Arrington's "need to interject himself into the stories"
That's what is and has been desirable for a long time.
Seriously - there are a number of sites that have attempted this, but none have the influence of TechCrunch.
What is it exactly you think these sites should do differently?
Take AngleGate. Was that "injecting drama", or was it reporting an important story?
There are lots of things I don't like about TechCrunch (MG's Apple fanboism, Erick's tendency to see everything as a zero-sum game), but I think the hate isn't constructive and goes way too far.
As for shaky ethics, idiocy - I think that blogging isn't the same as print media, and the ethics are different to what print media's are. I'm not sure Arrington has them right yet, but I do think there should be a way for him to be a player and still report and offer analysis.
Filter the signal from the noise. TC was mostly just an arbitrary filter on the noise, with inscrutable criteria. For quite a stretch there you were only on TC if you were somehow related to Twitter. If anything it's improved on that aspect as Arrington has been less involved (but it's still too noisy for my taste).
I never had any problem with TC itself, it's easy enough for me to not read it, my problem was that people seemed to think that it was somehow more important than it really was. Pardon the tautology but it was/is only really ever important to people who thought it was important, like how some celebrities are famous for being famous.
TechCrunch isn't important except as a source for documenting history of tech startups. I find that useful - I think it is good to show how attitudes to Google, Apple and Facebook change over time, and Techcrunch reflects that.
It is also important in closing the loop between companies and investors.
Beyond those things? I dunno - you are probably right. But that doesn't excuse the hate people seem to have.