Michael Arrington out in the cold, TechCrunch in turmoil
(CBS) - A Tuesday morning rant by TechCrunch writer MG Siegler gives us a glimpse into the tumultuous relationship between the tech blog and parent company AOL.
In the post, Siegler accused AOL of pushing out TechCrunch founder and provocateur Michael Arrington.
"As soon as tomorrow, Mike may be thrown out of the company he founded. Or he may not. No one knows. And if he is, he will be replaced by - well, again, no one knows. No one knows much of anything," Seigler said in the post. Melodrama much, MG?
The conflict started when the New York Times wrote a piece following the announcement of CrunchFund, a new venture capital fund started by Arrington and backed by AOL.
TechCrunch was upset the New York Times suggested that CrunchFund investments would be in direct conflict with TechCrunch's thorough coverage of start-ups. Well, isn't it?
New York Times writer David Carr pointed out, "the idea of a news site that covers every aspect of nascent tech companies sharing a brand name and founder with a venture capital firm financing these same companies seems almost comically over the line."
Carr managed to get a statement from Arianna Huffington, who is now head of AOL's editorial operations. "Michael has stepped down," Huffington said, "and is no longer on the editorial payroll effective immediately."
That was Sunday.
On Monday, Arrington began firing back on Twitter. "NY Times refuses to disclose partial ownership of Red Sox when writing about them. I wonder why," he tweeted.
New York Times editor Patrick LaForge fired back with a link to an article posted in July 2011, acknowledging the relationship.
TechCrunch's Paul Carr weighed in Tuesday saying, "The main allegation in Carr's piece - that Mike has behaved unethically with regards to disclosures - is flat wrong, and it should be corrected."
Carr posted a correction and tweeted the concerned parties, including blogger Robert Scoble, who Carr mistakenly called a venture capitalist.
Are we in the middle of a pointless nerd fight or what? Arrington does write about companies that he invests in. That is well-known. Both Arrington and Carr acknowledge that there is disclosure of these investments.
Whether we should believe Siegler, who states that even Arrington doesn't know the fate of his role at TechCrunch, or Huffington who said Arrington stepped down is neither her nor there. This could all just be a publicity stunt.
How TechCrunch's editorial voice will change remains to be seen. Without Arrington to persuade start-ups to give TechCrunch scoops, will the blog be able to stay ahead of the curb?
UPDATE:
Michael Arrington made an official statement regarding the confusion over his role at TechCrunch on Tuesday afternoon.
"As of late last week TechCrunch no longer has editorial independence," Arrington said.
In his blog post, Arrington offered AOL an "option" to return editorial independence to TechCrunch. He went on to emphasize the need for "autonomy from Huffington Post."
"To put it simply, TechCrunch would stay with Aol but would be independent of the Huffington Post," Arrington added.
We don't know the full story, but it's not a stretch to imagine the battle of egos that could happen between the two properties. Both TechCrunch and the Huffington Post have fierce personalities at the helm.
Arrington finished off by stating, "If Aol cannot accept either of these options, and no other creative solution can be found, I cannot be a part of TechCrunch going forward."
Sounds like an ultimatum, but will AOL comply?
