Arrington vs. Arrington

Uh oh. Mike Arrington's at it again. Today in his blog, TechCrunch, he announced that he would divest his startup investment portfolio, claiming to avoid conflict of interest. Before the typical bashing of some of his competition, he paused to reaffirm his commitment to journalism ethics. From the post, The Rules Apply To Everyone:

"Conflicts of interest and ethical reporting are something that we are very careful about at TechCrunch. We write principally about new startups, and these companies are usually very nervous about early reviews of their products. We’ve been offered significant cash payments to write about some companies, which have always been rudely declined. We’ve always been extremely careful to disclose any conflicts of interest in our stories (which is usually that I’ve invested in a competitor). These conflicts are very rare. Despite that, some people have spread rumors that we’re dishonest in our coverage (from what we can tell, these usually start with an entrepreneur at a startup we’ve refused to cover, or gave a negative review to). All of these claims are false."

Noble words.

There are a lot of people, however, who would have issue with his claims. Sure, I could quote Dave Winer, or Allen Stern, or I'm sure Richard Jones of Last.fm has something to say, but forget those guys. Let's hear what Michael Arrington has to say. Here's a fun old chestnut from his CrunchNotes site:

"TechCrunch is different. TechCrunch is all about insider information and conflicts of interest. The only way I get access to the information I do is because these entrepreneurs and venture capitalists are my friends. I genuinely like these people and want them to succeed, and they know it and therefore trust me more than they trust traditional press.

I am an active investor, board member and advisory board member with a number of startups. That isn’t going to change. I also write about startups. That isn’t going to change, either. Obviously people like what we write on TechCrunch or they wouldn’t come back. But no one should think TechCrunch is objective or conflict-free. We aren’t. We never have been. We never will be."

So, which Michael do you believe? The one who talks about ethics and journalistic integrity, or the one who makes truckloads of cash writing up his rich Valley buddies?