Quantcast

The TechCrunch Credibility Gap

Feb 5, 2010 | 1 Comment |
|  

By Senior Editor – Kris Smith (@croncast)

I’ve sat on the fence all day surrounding the TechCrunch writer DB taking gifts to write posts on companies.

I don’t have much to add to this fray beyond being a spectator of a problem that I would not want to have to deal with here at Tech Startups.

This event, lawsuits and jumbled messes like the CrunchPad are putting some serious doubts into TechCrunch’s ability to maintain as a tech reporting powerhouse.

The worst of it though is something that TechCrunch has tried to slide under the carpet – all of DB’s posts. They removed them from the site. Everyone thought that there would be no way to go back and check which company may have used payolla in the form of gear to get their story posted on TechCrunch.

However, all around awesome dude and internets master Kosso, with the help of Google cache (see his comment) was able to reconstruct a partial list:

Appsfire. PanelFly. MacStories. Palaran. WooThemes. Skribit. Ning. Isorocket. DropBox. TextPlus. Graphic.ly. Posterous. Personera. Rocketbox. LinkedIn. Owle. Yazzem. Apple. Square. BeamMe. Vokle. CubeTree. TwitVid. TokBox. EtherPad. Yammer. Seesmic.

I am not sure how TechCrunch will avoid releasing the company name that did pay to have their post(s) written. It certainly is in bad form not to share this. By not sharing which company it was it casts doubt on all of the TechCrunch posts legitimacy. All of them.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

1 Comment »

  • Edward Dekeratry said:

    All fair concerns Kris, but it it really does come with the territory. The volume of content Arrington and crew deals with with at TechCrunch on a daily basis must prove difficult to supervise as the site grows

    While I agree that the name(s) should be released, I understand it must have been a difficult decision. They did make the right move on acting so quickly however.

    While I don’t know all of the details surrounding Daniel, what I can say is that he was a great guest speaker for an online Pop17 panel discussion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH56tEvOOwU) which used vokle’s platform.

    Unfortunate that we all must feel the repercussions, but I do wish Daniel the best with his future endeavors, and understand TechCrunch’s decision.

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.