With South Africa’s tax season underway and SARS’ auto-assessments being sent out, the tax revenue service has warned of scams targeting eFiling users. SARS…
That seems to be why some have defended Mike Arrington, Editor of the influential Techcrunch publication, when he disclosed last week his investments in startups, and said it did create “conflicts of interests“.
Some praised his disclosure, saying that as long as his financial biases are disclosed then that’s OK.
However, Arrington has failed to meet even these minimal levels of ethical behaviour.
That disclosure came about only because Kara Swisher, Editor of All Things Digital, put questions to senior AOL executives, the prior day. It’s clear looking at the timing of Arrington’s disclosure that it came as a direct result of Ms Swisher’s investigation, and it was not offered voluntarily, in the full spirit of disclosure, as his post suggests.
AOL senior management forced Arrington to make the disclosure.
So, is it OK among his supporters and readers, that Arrington did not disclose his investments prior to April 27?
Clearly, by the standards of the community that reads Techcrunch, it is not OK that he did not disclose, and that he kept his investments secret for several months.
How long would he have continued to keep those investments secret?
Arrington writes: “I think that this will all be fine.” Really?
Ms Swisher says that Arrington is not a journalist but some strange product of new media. I disagree.
He is an editor of a news publication that employs journalists, editors, photographers, etc. It has all the infrastructure of a news publication; and its products: news and analysis — look and feel like journalism.
If it looks like journalism, and it consistently looks like journalism, then it is journalism — there is no other measure.
I bet Techcrunch writers will not follow the example of their editor because they know that it harms their reputation and the perception of their reporting.
Silicon Valley’s startups deserve to have a level playing field and that means media coverage that is not conflicted by financial bias.