EDIT: There always seems to be some air of schoolboy drama surrounding TechCrunch.
For example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2011/sep/15/techcrunch-a...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505124_162-43452680/techcrunch-d...
And I'm sure that this news will spur some, too. Who cares?
Regardless of anyone's opinion of him, he's been a big factor in shaping the startup press world.
Do you really think that it is okay that they are allowed to be in journalism in an area where they both have financial stake in companies they report on?
Everyone's biased. Read any political editorial. They are clear with their biases. There's a slant to everything you have a personal investment in (whether financial or just sheer interest in the topic). Truly objective journalism is very rare nowadays. An ersatz veneer of objectivity is common but that's more insidious, IMHO.
Do you really think that it is okay that they are allowed to be in journalism in an area where they both have financial stake in companies they report on?
If they disclose it, yes. Journalism is no sacred cow. It's as scummy and scabby as any industry. The fact they disclose their conflicts of interest puts them above any journalist who has been taken for dinner or drinks by a PR flack or big company or flown out on a press junket (pathetically common, rarely disclosed to readers).
hn is as much about the personalities as it is the products and companies.