The New York Times? David Carr Is Wrong About TechCrunch, But It?s Not His Fault

There should be a word for an op-ed that is so ambiguous that all sides are able to use it to support their argument. A "failure" perhaps. When I wrote my post criticizing Tim Armstrong and Mike Arrington's handling of the CrunchFund launch, I thought I'd made my point pretty clear. My point being that, while there was no suggestion that TechCrunch would write favourable editorial about CrunchFund companies, there would still be a damaging perception to the contrary. But then, in today's New York Times, David Carr (no relation) wrote a piece entitled "A Tech Blogger Who Leaps Over the Line" in which he accused Mike of a variety of ethical violations, and then quoted me as follows?

'One of the sharpest critiques of this conflation came from Paul Carr, who happens to write for TechCrunch (and is no relation to me). He savaged Mr. Armstrong for fumbling the announcement and sacrificing TechCrunch?s editorial credibility, and said he was worried that ?investors will gain influence over how CrunchFund-backed companies are covered on TechCrunch.?'

No. No. No.

SAIC ROCKWELL AUTOMATION RF MICRO DEVICES