Maybe it's just me, but millionaires fighting other millionaires for WordPress admin status makes for little sympathy. I don't work at AOL and don't need to take part in their office politics.
This is so much fun. It seems that we now have a fight between two divas -- Arrington and Huffington. It is one of those fights where you do not care who wins, you just hope for lots of bloodshed. It's like a Raiders Broncos game!
So Mike Arrington makes a stand for editorial independence. Now for those of you new to this whole discussion, we should note that Mike editorial independence Arrington started this whole brouhaha by the obvious and blatant conflicts of interest he got himself in. Namely he was investing in companies he covers and now is starting a fund that would seem to be dedicated to investing in companies he covers.
After the ny times called him out on the conflict, it was obvious that TechCrunch's claim of it being an independent news source would be utterly laughable. And that probably prompted Ariana to make her move.
And now Arrington is making a bold stand by resigning in the name of "editorial independence". Probably he did not have a choice but to resign, not because of editorial independence from Ariana Huffington, but because of editorial independence from his own conflicts of interest. But by making this stand he very cleverly tried to divert the attention from his own fuckups and poison the waters for whoever Ariana tries to appoint to lead TechCrunch.
Now I would like to say I am not on Ariana's side. I wanted to point out the blatant hypocracy of Arringrton, but Ariana's career is so full of double dealing and questionable behavior that I doubt TechCrunch would be better with her. Like I said, it is the Raiders playing the Broncos, and I am not choosing sides just enjoying the violence.
Arrington: I'm going to start raising a fund, with the Crunch name and telling investors they'll get privileged access to TechCrunch and covered companies.
Ariana: Pffth! GTFO!
Arrington: Editorial independence! Help, help, I'm being repressed!
This from the guy who's started thumbing his nose at AOL the day they bought his company. Even started a feud with Engadget accusing them of some underhanded BS that ended when AOL had Arrington's back and most of the Engadget team quit.
AOL keeps outdoing itself in its search for the most annoying new media personalities to bless with a cashout and one-way trip to oblivion (Calacanis, Huffington, Harrington). And they keep laughing all the way to the bank.
The conflict of interest is a total red herring. Arrington has always disclosed much more than most. If you think it's not, you don't know how the (tech) news industry works.
The news business is always inherently conflicted. In the old days Tony Perkins ran Red Herring and his father was the Perkins in Kleiner Perkins.
A journalist is always getting spin from insiders, and then has to write the story that's true and complete, that engages readers. You're always making a deal with the source, I'll help you get your side out, if you help me get the story closer to the truth. Debunking spin is generally not a way to keep your sources talking to you first, or writing what readers and advertisers want.
That being said, I don't see how you can be a VC, on the board of companies and privy to all their inside dope, and at the same time be a journalist whose job is ferreting out the inside dope from everybody else (including possibly competition) and sharing it with the world and passing judgment on them.
You can't be an insider and an outsider at the same time. You can be a VC, with fiduciary duties impacting your own and your investors' wealth, or a journalist, whose duty is to inform readers as much as possible, but not both.
Arrington & Armstrong created CrunchFund as partners and the controversy is purely Arrington's doing.
This latest breathlessly pissed off post demonstrates Arrington can still post anything he likes to TechCrunch.
So why not write a clear and concise explanation on TC to begin with?
I'd submit that Arrington is ready to leave TC to focus on investing, and there's no better way to do that than with a massive page-view heavy controversy.
Sure, Arrington doesn't care if he burns his bridges, he's ready to move on and he knows what a post like this will buy him (respect and enemies). That doesn't mean the controversy is empty though.
It's still ball-sy and more than 99.99% of people in the business would do and yes, for that he gets respect points. Like it or not.
Arrington frames it as a matter of "editorial independence" and doesn't talk about ethics and conflict of interests.
However, I don't see how anyone else (and least of all, the owners of TechCrunch) can ignore those two matters - and the resultant impact on the credibility of TechCrunch.
Ultimately, Arrington made a conscious decision to sell TechCrunch to AOL. He made another conscious decision to become the founder of CrunchFund.
The two-option ultimatum in his post seems like simple posturing. It seems like he is ready to finally leave TechCrunch, but doesn't want to frame it as a simple matter of leaving TechCrunch to become a full-time investor (who also blogs - the Fred Wilson model).
> It seems like he is ready to finally leave TechCrunch, but doesn't want to frame it as a simple matter of leaving TechCrunch to become a full-time investor
I wonder about this. Even if you accept the premise that his priority is now his fund, it seems like Mike's formally leaving TechCrunch could have a nontrivial impact on "CrunchFund's" deal flow?
this point however is pretty fascinating "Sell TechCrunch back to the original shareholders". I wonder if he'd be willing to put a number on that sale?
Why do I have the feeling that we (the public) aren't the real target for these posts? This all has the feel of a giant power-play within AOL that we are only one side of.
I know that this is TechCrunch, but do we really have to be exposed to the drama that is normally reserved for office politics? Or is this all just an attempt to give Arrington, et al. cover for when this whole thing just blows up?
Or, it could all be for the pageviews... has it been a slow news month?
It's obviously not a pageview drive... This is making AOL look really bad, so if it's a pageview drive AOL is stupid. Especially because of the post MG wrote last night which sounded very honest and blunt.
AOL's accumulated profit over its entire existence (pre-merger, merged, and post-merger) is negative $1.1 billion, counting realized and unrealized losses. They haven't made money at all yet.
Am I the only one who sides with Arrington? I feel that TechCrunch has taken editorial ethics seriously so far, and see no reason why this shouldn't continue.
The capital J Journalist folks that MG Siegler referenced in his piece earlier have found TechCrunch's position on editorial ethics so laughable that it's almost hard to quantify the gulf between their expectations and the piddling concessions TechCrunch has offered over the years.
I lived with a capital J journalist for a long time and got to know a lot of his coworkers and contacts, and I was really quite surprised at the lengths those people go to maintain their journalistic integrity. They would not simply disclose conflicts of interest, they would completely avoid them. For example, a lot of them would not even vote in elections or invest in funds that could even potentially contain stock in companies that they could even possibly cover in the future (regardless of whether or not they were even working in that field!). To the individuals that subscribe to that system, Arrington's position as an editor of a tremendously powerful tech news source and an investor in tech companies is absolutely irreconcilable.
I think it's unfortunate that a lot of people really have little comprehension of what this so-called "capital J journalism" is about. In fact, it's pretty sad that someone in MG Siegler's position would even draw such a distinction. There is no such thing as capital J journalism. There's journalism, and then there's bullshit.
edited: originally I referred to Siegler as MC Siegler
You ever actually been reported on by a "capital J journalist"? Their quality standards look a whole lot different when you're the one being reported on.
Regarding not voting in elections. I'm reading a book called 'Influence' where he talks about merely the act of writing something down influencing your future decisions, so by going out and voting for one person over another might very well have a deeper influence than it seems. He's now 'your' guy/gal at some level.
That's traditional journalism, but traditional journalism is going out of business. Tabloids and demagoguery are an easier sell for dumb audiences, and smart audiences can deal with bias, so there's only a niche market left for impartial journalism. We certainly can't expect it to remain the predominant paradigm.
You and I may think there's something seedy and questionable about writing for a trashy tabloid, but it's not up to us what other people want to read.
Tabloids and demagoguery have existed for as long as real journalism. I think it's odd to think that either one is going to replace the other entirely, although it certainly seems that at times one is more prevalent. Every era has its Creelman and Hearst, but most have their Menckens and Pulitzers too.
The New York Times' article about Arrington's questionable ethics was written with the general public in mind, most of whom probably know very little about TC and Arrington. If nothing else, now when they see a TC reference or an Arrington byline in some other venue (or if they click on a link directing them to TC), they'll take whatever is said with a grain of salt. Perhaps that's what you mean by "smart audiences can deal with bias." Unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that even the smart people need a reliable efficient source for startup news that isn't being delivered by people with a monetary interest in what they're covering... Obviously most of the people that are reading HN have enough interest in startup and tech news that they're willing to filter primary sources themselves. But what about someone in another field? Don't they deserve an unbiased, reliable, and informed source?
I don't think anyone can afford to be naive anymore. Even traditional journalism, by and large, was a sham--the "impartial" news media is still biased for the most part, they're just better at hiding it under a veneer of professionalism.
How does "not even vot[ing] in elections" in any way help with bias for a particular candidate? If you use a spin pulpit to shill for your desired candidate, how does not going out and voting for him too do anything to change that?
To be above all suspicion or reproach. The people I knew were pretty hardcore. That being said, they weren't all that intense. I'm sure some of them did vote, but they weren't running the campaign for one of the candidates in their off time, and if they were, they would have been fired immediately. As for spin pulpits, I'm not talking about opinion writing, I'm talking about reporting, which is ostensibly what TechCrunch does.
How is that above all suspicion? If you want the candidate in office, murder his opponent for that reason, and then make sure not to actually go out and cast a vote for him, does that somehow make it less of a political assassination?
Ethical track record aside, players and coaches don't get to officiate games; active investors don't get a free pass to be journalists in the same space. He KNEW he'd have to leave TechCrunch for the fund. The rest is just posturing.
Why? Om Malik is a partner in a venture firm[1] and still writes for GigaOm.
You don't have to obtain a license or agree to uphold any particular code of conduct to be allowed to write about news for the web. You just write, and if people value what you have to say, they read. Arrington even had signoff from the CEO of AOL saying he could do both.
That's not to say that Arrington is completely in the right in this. Many reasonable people seem to be worried about the conflict of interest, so there's a good chance that it's in AOL's interest to dispose of him to avoid worse PR. But I think he absolutely went into this thinking that he could keep doing TechCrunch.
I side with Arrington too, AOL didn't stick to their promise and Huff Post is hardly editorial brilliance. They don't pay most of their staff and a lot of their content is just SEO spam. I mean all of these editors of Engadget left, keeping quiet but many hinted about the editorial aspects inside of AOL as one of the reasons they'd resigned.
Are you sure about this? "Every post" is a strong statement.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mr. Arrington is an implicit investor in YC, through the Angel Fund, and Techcrunch gave the YC startups a ton of coverage lately. The few articles that I read in the early going made no reference to this fact.
YC startups have been given lots of press for years. You may be right, I don't know the specifics of the terms but YC startups have always had a lot of coverage because they're YC startups.
I've seen far more bias from the mainstream press tech reporters towards certain startups. All these journalists seem to be hired by a number of startups. Seems like some are just reporting to help their career.
No they don't, and even if they wanted to they can't without it causing further problem (because of startups being in stealth, the disclosure itself giving favourable coverage to the startup).
I briefly worked for AOL on the Winamp team right after they acquired both Winamp and Time Warner. The story that an AOL deal ends up in a total cluster fuck is 10 years old.
With any knowledge of recent history, it is boggling anyone thought this acquisition would work and I don't believe for a second Arrington is writing in earnest.
SHOUTcast's recent week-long on and off outage and subsequent crippling of their APIs is evidence enough of how seriously (or lack thereof) they take some of their properties.
The life of any app is measured in years, the best of which is when you sell to a "larger organization that can use its widespread exposure to further grow the community" while it dies a couple of years later. Just look at Yahoo!'s portfolio. Arrington wanting his baby back is a bunch of BS.
Reddit would be an anomaly, I'm happy to say, although it still has a ways to grow out of its niche.
Most of the editors at Engadget, another tech blog owned by AOL have left publicly citing AOL's editorial policy. I am surprised by the lack of support that Hacker News community is showing to Arrington. Even in the post announcing the sale to AOL, there was clear stress about the editorial independence of TC. Arrington always has had a weird investment policy, but to his credit, he has maintained a strict transparency about his posts. For people who are alleging what happens to those companies which are competitors, won't the same logic apply to Fred Wilson or Om Malik, both of whom are VCs as well as popular bloggers.
I do think Arrington should not have named his fund CrunchFund. Techcrunch runs a database about companies and people involved in the tech industry called Crunchbase. This brings us to a different question. Michael earlier had a plan for a tablet called CrunchPad, which didn't materialize when he had a fall-out with his technical partner. Does the brand name belong to the company or to the founder ? No matter who owns the trademark and other legal stuff, I believe it should stay with the company.
I'm surprised as well. Editorial independence is a real issue (not like the conflict of interest red herring), and we're not defending it for the most influential tech news blog?
Agree. I am amazed at how most people just bash TechCrunch and leave the matter. No matter one likes it or not, they are the biggest tech blog and so very influential. TC's well-being is in the interest of the startup community.
This makes me suspect that Arrington is one of those people who every now and then digs in his heels and has a complete inability to see things from his opponent's point of view. For example, here he does not even bother to address what seems to me to be the central issue (journalistic conflict of interest).
The "journalist conflict of interest" is something for individual journalists to disclose. The true central issue here is the promise (which may even have been made under contract) of editorial independence for TechCrunch. If the writers then fail to disclose conflicts of interest, that's an ethical position for then, not now.
You seem to think this is AOL enforcing journalistic standards. Try reading the whole saga again. The blowtorch that ignited this wasn't CrunchFund itself (which AOL backed), but AOL CEO Tim Armstrong (NOT Arrington) disclaiming journalistic integrity:
“TechCrunch is a different property and they have different standards… we have a traditional understanding of journalism with the exception of TechCrunch.”
This is a disaster of AOL's making, not Arrington's.
Seems to me like he is making a hands-off comment with regards to TechCrunch, as in - we wouldn't allow an editor of a regular property to invest in companies they write about, but TechCrunch has different rules.
Perhaps it is, but having a member of the senior staff also running an investment fund that invests in the very subjects of the TechCrunch site is a huge integrity issue. Armstrong seemed to be dodging the question to me, a way to avoid having to answer for what Arrington is up to.
I kinda see what you're getting at, but it doesn't really make any sense. Armstrong was actively working with Arrington on the fund. It wouldn't be answering for Arrington (or at least not just Arrington), but for himself and AOL as a whole.
This wasn't something that Arrington just announced out of the blue that AOL has to scramble to react to. Armstrong was active in setting the whole thing up, and AOL was investing in the fund. They knew this was happening way in advance, and announced it with Arrington. Then everything went to hell. To whatever degree this could possibly be construed as Arrington's fault, it must also be seen as at least equally AOL's fault.
I agree wholeheartedly on that last point - it's all of their fault for not making sure that a giant firewall existed between Arrington and TechCrunch as a part of this announcement.
It's obvious that he has certain limits to his personal competence like us all and is unable to either seek or comprehend third-party advice once he's past the point of no return. This is not the first time that we've seen his personal drama detailed in public and it really detracts from the brand. Off the top of my head I'll cite the tablet project, Airbnb debacle, Calacanis just name a few.
If Aol is listening they need to put distance between themselves and Arrington, not get closer.
It's called "selling out" for a reason. If Michael Arrington is genuinely surprised that an acquirer is not holding to the sweet, sweet promises it made him at acquisition time, then he has no business being a tech journalist.
The correct time for this kind of acute episode of journalistic integrity was before cashing the AOL check, not after. He was under no pressure to relinquish his independence.
More likely he sees an opportunity to head for the exit with at least one suitcase still full of money.
And Bankoff (the guy who orchestrated the Weblogs, Inc. merger, and subsequent editorial strategy of the NewAOL which Armstrong is executing on today) would probably be more than happy to welcome them into the fold.
It's the law of cycles. Techcrunch has had a good run, but in the internet era, a fast paced blog can't last forever. See the downhill progress of Engadget and Gizmodo. Time to make room for a new king of the hill.
AOL says F* You Arrington, does what they want since they bought tech crunch and they own it. The past shareholders have no ability to recall the buyout almost a year later and say nevermind we want our company back.
Reality is Arrington sold, Arrington started a new fund. People think this new fund will interfere with Arrington's "Editorial Independence" therefore they claim he will be gone.
At the end of the day it just does not matter that much, If Mike is who he thinks he is he could just go start another blog tomorrow and gain all the traction he wanted. His non-compete (if applicable) is probably non-enforceable after the first twelve months anyhow.
If he is not then he should just go back to his new fund and invest in some startups loudly (which is the Arrington fashion) which is probably what he will do best
So presumably this includes the possibility of writing 100% positive articles on CrunchFund funded companies and 100% negative articles on their competitors....
NBC is owned by GE, that doesn't restrict NBC Nightly News from reporting on the weapons made by GE that were used by and against Libyan rebels. I understand the levels of separation are a lot deeper with GE/NBC, but as long as full disclosure is given about his relationship with Crunchfund companies I don't see a huge ethical problem.
That said, I really don't see why Arrington would want to try wearing both hats. It brings a huge magnifying glass onto the bias in his articles, and possibly the articles of all those at TechCrunch.
Is TechCrunch promising to always give full disclosure? The earlier articles this morning seemed to be very upset that anyone would think they need to do something like this, something so "old media" like.
Who didn't see this coming 11 months ago? Many founders seem to regret the sale of their baby...Arrington is no different. Acquisitions are tough when talented people are involved and it's no longer their ship to run.
Like Arrington/TC or not, it is hard to deny that since the AOL acquisition that TC has gone above and beyond to make sure they assert their independence.
It's very interesting to see the internal politics spill out on the main page, and it's fascinating to see the struggle between the competing entities after an acquisition.
I think many/most other media acquisitions would have squashed this - imagine any of News Corp media outlets EVER writing/reporting a negative story about News Corp, and the same would go for NBC and MSNBC of GE, and all the others.
I must say, although it can be construed as just grandstanding and attention grabbing, Mike and the TC team have gotten a few extra points from me over these episodes.
Sure, they may have overdone it at times, but it couldn't have been easy for Arrington to stand by and watch his reporters str8 up tell his new overlords "Fuck Off" (literally - one of TC's bloggers tweeted that, can't remember which one).
Glad to see them publicly wrestle with their independence. There is something brave about doing it in public.
First off, I should say one thing. I am not a fan of Arrington. In fact, I really dislike him and think he's an over-arrogant POS.
However, I do enjoy his site and prefer its raw ethical nature. They promised editorial independence and this should remain true. I have to side with Arrington. That being said, I don't believe pushing this issue publicly like this is going to help one bit. I'd bet that AOL sees this post and considers it insubordination leaving them with no choices but let him go (if that's even possible?)
One thing I hate about the "big guys" in news is that it is the news "they" want you to hear, and I hate that. If Arrington leaves TechCrunch, and the ethics behind TechCrunch leave with him, I will no longer visit the site.
Why is "editorial independence" here being taken to mean the same thing as "ethical"?
Aren't these two separate issues? I don't understand how AOL having some editorial control over TechCrunch has anything to do with TechCrunch following standard journalistic ethics with regards to conflicts of interest - unless TechCrunch feels it should have the independence to not disclose conflicts of interest.
There seems to be some discussion about exactly what "standard journalistic ethics" is. Some people would probably prefer disclosure in a case where, say, MG Sigler writes about a company that Arrington invested in. TechCruch feels that no disclosure is required in such cases because of their unique lack of editorial oversight (translation: apparently "TechCrunch" is just a bunch of independent writers who don't talk to each other).
I think it would be more accurate to characterize that dispute as being between TechCrunch and the rest of the entire journalism industry. I don't think anyone else thinks that what TechCrunch would like - selective disclosure, because "you can trust us" - is a good idea.
FYI, there's no such thing as "over-arrogant", there's no amount arrogance that is considered a positive, you would just say someone is arrogant.
Though given your use of air quotes about the "big guys", I may be wasting my time here.
Most people don't realize this, but The New York Times is a big corporation like AOL (with sometimes similarish market caps).
- The New York Times has invested in technology companies like AdKeeper, Automattic, Ongo, Brightcove, Federated Media, and funds like Betaworks (which is in dozens of startups in all kinds of fields). Have their reporters ever received tips and information about upcoming companies and tech launches because of these connections? Do they get written about more often than your average startup? You better believe it. If you look through their coverage of these companies they imperfectly acknowledge their involvement (even the ones they've invested in directly).
These were just three examples I pulled quickly (I sincerely apologize for using these companies as examples since this has nothing to do with them). Do your own search for any New York Times invested or Betaworks company on nytimes.com and you'll see what I mean. Does this change their coverage of other competing tech companies?
- The New York Times has their own internal division that develops software products and services that other publishing companies and media companies buy. Does this change their coverage on competing technologies and competitors?
- The New York Times owns a diverse set of businesses in competition with Aol's current strategy including about.com. They also own a chunk of the Boston Red Sox.
I'm going to be blunt. I don't think the New York Times is shady enough to let this change their coverage despite their obvious conflicts of interest (in the BrightCove article in their 8 day later correction stresses that "The New York Times Company owns a small stake of less than five percent in Brightcove". I doubt Michael Arrington owns 5% of any startup he's written about). And since TechCrunch has had (if anything) a policy of more transparency and disclosure than the Times has had, I can't for the life of me see what all the ruckus is about.
My disclosure: I am tangentially connected to most of these companies by investment, friendship, or business relationships and I think the world of them. OwnLocal also works with all kinds of newspapers and publishers as a matter of course.
Counterpoint, the NY Times has an ethics policy that would never have allowed anything like TechCrunch (even before the newly announced investment fund plan!).
"44. Staff members may not engage in financial counseling (except through the articles they write). They may not manage money for others, offer investment advice, or help operate an investment company of any sort, with or without pay. They may, however, help family members with ordinary financial planning and serve as executors or administrators of estates of relatives and friends and as court-appointed conservators and guardians."
"They may not offer ideas or proposals to people who figure in their coverage or make investments in productions in their field. (Food writers and editors may not invest in restaurants.) "
Etc etc.
The New York Times company owns a lot of stuff. So does AOL. AOL running an investment fund isn't shady in the least. Having an employee who covers tech startups on one of your media properties run a fund for you that invests in tech startups... Big difference. You don't see whoever's job it is to invest in Automattic at the NY Times out there writing A1 on the technology page.
The main difference here is there is a strict firewall at the New York Times Company and not at TechCrunch. Forget disclosure, the NY Times would never let Mike have the startups beat in the first place because of his personal investment activity. Make that professional investment activity and it's just that much more unacceptable.
The New York Times already has a way around this through Op-Ed columnists. Thus, it's okay for someone like Warren Buffett, Robert Reich, or someone the Times hires on spec to completely ignore these policies. If TechCrunch were to adhere to the Times' standard, then Arrington might alternatively be either an Op-Ed columnist paid on spec for his pieces of writing, a reporter paid to do a job, or a staff editorial writer.
The reality is that this is a distinction without difference today (especially when editorial is mixed with reporting). Disclosure should be part of every article, op-ed, or editorial. As far as I'm concerned, TechCrunch is actually setting a more rigorous standard than the Times is for future media.
Opinion is different than news. Op-Ed columnists don't get the inside track on news that helps them make money and make money for others. Similarly, reporters stay off the opinion page. It's not just a matter of disclosing, the whole concept is against the policy of any reputable media organization (not that I'm of the opinion TechCrunch is, but that's what this is about).
The NYT doesn't let their reporters trade on companies they cover. Would it seem strange to you if a NYT reporter was hired to simultaneously manage a venture fund to invest in companies that are on his beat?
I'm reminded of the link posted last week [1] arguing that founders make better CEOs. TechCrunch was a valuable asset for AOL to pick up precisely because of the way it was organized and managed.
I am sure he has written and said many things to AOL at this point. He is grumpy, rich and thinks AOL crossed major boundary lines that were part of their original agreement. At this point, he knows that he can either:
a) Get AOL to bow down to his rants (Charlie Sheen anyone?) and "reimplement" those boundaries. Basically he wants to stick it to the man that gave him 30 million to prove hes bigger than the man.
b) buy TC back from AOL, probably for half as much as they paid.
Inside I am sure he is thinkin this is awesome cuz either way dude walks away with 8 bajillion dollars, synonymous popularity in tech world and every chance in the world to start another uber blog/mediacompany/empire.
Plus, he can pull a Steve Jobs even if he does quit, and resurrect the company at any time he wants to after AOL buries it and Ariana becomes Co-Editor..
Page views. This is TechCrunch we're talking about. Nobody actually wants to read it, so they have to resort to tactics like this in order to get anyone to look at their site.
This was already being played out in public. It's a PR battle, and Arrington thrives in massive public fights, while AOL has always been the big clumsy giant that can't find its ass with both hands.
I think a better question is why wouldn't he want it to escalate?
This whole saga is nothing short of confusing. I guess the owners of TC lost sight of the picture when they saw a nice financial exit. They've covered AOL long enough to know how bad things might get. What's really interesting is how AOL managed stay alive all these years and even acquire properties with life in them.
Techcrunch is an interesting read now and then and certainly draws people that love what they do and others that don't. Lots of trolls anytime Steve Gilmour or MG Siegler post, it is the nature of the Web.
This very much seems like a spat between Arriana Huffington and Michael Arrington, both of which have very public forums to address their sides. At the end of the day, if the paperwork signed says that TC was to have "editorial independence" from Huffington Post, then AOL needs to address that. If it doesn't, then the parties involved need to figure out how to salve the assorted egos.
The CrunchFund thing? I get the impression that Armstrong and Arrington get along and Armstrong/AOL see the Crunchfund as a way of getting AOL (event at a distance) more involved in developing new companies. Does it make things more complicated? Probably.
He already has editorial independence. What he wants is independence to run a venture fund. It's a crucial distinction, and one AOL's lawyers can surely make -- convincingly -- in court.
I was just going to post the same comment! 1) Quietly and privately agree on his role, then 2) stage a public melodrama for traffic, and finally 3) bring the drama to a resolution favorable to both TC and AOL. That's worth at least 4 or 5 record-traffic articles if played right. (I'm usually not this cynical, but then again, this is TechCrunch.)
The page loaded completely empty for me, even after enabling every prompted script domain via NoScript. Curious, I checked the source, and it looks like the page essentially consists of script elements within an unclosed head tag:
