What to think about “…trade magazines that occasionally commit acts of journalism”
The Atlantic’s Alexis Madrigal has a few thoughts on the TechCrunch/Michael Arrington issue (he wants to run an investment fund that would put money into companies being written about on the website):
Many websites are functioning largely as trade magazines that occasionally commit acts of journalism. Techcrunch, and Mashable to an even greater extent, are more like the new American Thresherman and Farm Power or Stone World or Successful Farming than they are the new New York Times. But it’s hard to know when they’re acting like the Times an when they are acting like Pluming and Mechanical Magazine.
First, it is clear that Madrigal needs an editor because the typos contained above are in the original post (and still there as I write this). Second, he certainly has a point about the niche these tech sites fill in the greater media world.
But I wouldn’t elevate the NYT too much when looking at this issue, which is my criticism of David Carr’s column. So I guess I’m just not all that concerned that anything Michael Arrington has done in the past, does now, or does in the future will in any way cause damage to journalism. The great advocates of the trade have already done enough damage, thank you.