"In some way or another, a line was crossed that should have never been."
I dislike him, imho, for not being able to own up to what he did. Passive voice is not admitting anything. I mean- he might as well say "They crossed a line and I got fired," for he isn't actually admitting any fault.
Give him a break; he was mature enough to apologize in public to TechCrunch and the tech community and should be forgiven. The kid seems to understand that his actions were wrong and promises to learn from this experience. I'd like to see the start-up who sent him the gift make the same public apology.
Does this gratify anyone's intellectual curiosity or is it more worthy of a tech tabloid? This feels like one of those trashy "reality tv shows," I expect more from the front page of hacker news.
I was about to flag this but then I got to the link which explains what the incident actually was. I think it makes for relevant reading - both that such things happen, and for the way tech crunch handled it. It's an unsavory part of life, but this makes it more important to have such incidents as transparent as possible.
The fact that this happened to Techcrunch makes it peripherally related to technology, and thus the interest here. But I think thi sis pretty-much exactly what separates news about technology people from hacker news.
The fact that one or two articles in techcrunch were unreliable is hardly news, this is an isolated incident. The actual apology--from a 17 year-old who is not himself a hacker nor a startup founder and whether it is sincere or not--not hacker news in my opinion.
Humm. The apology is not fit to be here, true. The submission should probably have linked to the techcrunch article. But the issue I think is worthy of attention because of the hacker aspect, not because it's technology. There are many review sites out there, on pretty much any subject possible, and the way a high profile one deals with open corruption is interesting stuff, imho.
Not to rant, but doesn't it feel weird to read such a perfectly crafted press statement written by a teenager about his personal matters?
Of course he's been writing for TC and I won't doubt its the right thing to write such a blog post in his situation, but this could just as well be written for a politician or a manager.
Sadly, it is somewhat disappointing how this situation was handled. It is understandable that Techcrunch is attempting to cover their own ass in terms of journalistic integrity but the fact that the individual at hand was a minor complicates the situation. When Arrington writes in "An Apology To Our Readers", anyone who is even remotely familiar with Techcrunch can deduce who screwed up from the information provided.
Yes, Daniel made a lapse in judgement, but being a minor (and clearly are hard and dedicated worker) he should have at least been given the opportunity to let this go down silently. When a minor gets into some trouble before they are 18, typically their record is wiped clean as they enter adulthood. Sadly, this is a permanent public record and could prevent him from getting hired or having a career in journalism again (whether thats deserved or not is up in the air).
As an intern, should he have been given so much responsibilty? Who knows really, it just kind of feels like they took advantage of Daniel and threw him to the wayside when he first faultered. Clearly that much spotlight and attention for someone that young might have been too much (at least without some protectionary measures). Losing his intern position and having to deal with that personally and with his family should have been punishment enough. If he wanted to make that a public issue, he should have at least gotten the choice. Instead he was forced publicly to disclose what happened to the world and might have to live with that small error in judgement his whole life. Ahah, it's almost the internets version of the story of original sin. I guess the temptation was to great for someone so young and naive and now hes been branded a bad seed.
I don't really see how being young is an excuse. Wrong is wrong, and he was old enough to know it. And Arrington did try to shield him (to a very limited extent); what would you have him do, keep someone on staff who has been proven to be corrupt?
There is a difference between knowing what is wrong because you've heard it and internalizing it. This is one reason why younger employees are usually given limited responsibilities. I'm not trying to excuse his behavior, but are high school interns usually given a blog on a major publication and free reign to write whatever they want? Seems like a bad idea...
Yes, one could make the point that his boss (i.e. Arrington) should have prevented this from happening, and I'd have to agree.
I must admit to having no better argument (although I wouldn't have done such things!), but note that "not having internalized wrong" is not meaningfully different from the "too young" argument I first disagreed with.
Unless you want to suggest that it's a failure of education?
I would tend to agree but one piece of information is still missing. Was the policy of TC relative to "compensations" made very clear to Daniel when he started ? If it was, then Daniel has no excuse since he transgressed clearly stated rules. If the rules were only implicit and assumed to be known and followed by authors then Daniel may be excused by his age since his education is not yet complete and he still needs time to mature.
The knowledge of good and bad builds up and refines itself with age through experiences. Note that a lot of adults are still confused about this limit in some domains like for instance exchanging and using unpayed copies of films and musics.
The integrity and reputation of TC is in play here so the prompt and radical reaction was legitimate. The communication was also a good move to make clear that such behavior is not in line with TC ethics.
Whether the collaboration with Daniel should have been terminated or not depends on his responsibility.
Turning public about this incident is a clear error of Daniel which may be another demonstration of his inexperience or bad advice given to him. This new error would have remained unnoticed if TC didn't advertise it.
My impression is that TC behaves with Daniel as if he was an adult, which he clearly isn't. This makes it much more difficult for Daniel to learn from his errors because the back burn is quite devastating and probably excessive.
I hope Daniel manage to learn the lessons, and I hope TC used this opportunity to learn some lessons too.
So in conclusion it is still not clear if Daniel is the only one to blame here. However the aim shouldn't be to know who to blame, but to make sure that everyone managed to learn what has to be learned and correct his behavior in consequence.
You are right, but does the act qualify as bribe ?
In my opinion, it would be a bribe if the compensation was presented as a condition to write and publish the article. Otherwise it may be interpreted as a tip which is then not so obviously bad because it is a common practice.
The problem with tips, especially in the US, as far as I know, is that it is kind of perverted. It should be a free gift expressing gratitude and recognition, but it is often considered by the receiver as a due and even the amount is often codified and considered an implicit agreement. This is so strong that not giving a tip is socially considered bad.
In France and most European countries tips are thankfully not considered as a due and requesting a tip is even considered rude, especially if the amount is specified.
So what if the author (US) interpreted his compensation requests as a tip ? It could have been considered as normal from his perspective since it is so common.
The information that would help clarifying our mind on this is if the author has put the compensation as a condition to write the article or not. As long as we don't know this, making any judgment in one way or the other is just poor judgment, that's all I tried to explain in my previous answer. From this perspective the down vote is a bit disappointing.
Perhaps that's because bribes, beyond Tips to waiters & taxi drivers, are not very prevalent in American society. What if you'd grown up in India, China, or Indonesia where small bribes to you your job are a fact of every day life. Would you ever learn that they're "wrong" if they're culturally accepted?
I understand what you're getting at, but he lives in the US, and as far as I know grew up here. It'd be nice to learn more about exactly what happened before making judgement, but if he really demanded an unsolicited bribe I don't think his age really excuses it.
Journalistic integrity? Are we talking about the same "publication"? The one that published stolen emails from Twitter after attempting to extort free advertising out of them?
Culture permeates an organization from the top. The guy probably just followed the tacit business practice, but was clumsy about it due to his age and inexperience.
I mean, Michael Arrington takes equity in return for publicity, this guy took a MacBook Air. What exactly is the difference?
Quite simply, the difference is that Michael would tell you about it. When you're aware or relationship or bias, you can (somewhat) mentally adjust for it.
Well, as an outsider who doesn't read TechCrunch, I never would have known what he was apoligizing for, unless TechCrunch had made that update on their entry (and "trackbacked" it on Daniel's blog). His apology was pretty nonspecific. Not that I really care one way or the other, but TechCrunch certainly "outed" him there.
What a shit apology- 'thanks for the opportunity, even though I purposefully tried to elicit bribes' to 'I did something generically bad, but won't own up to it' to 'look at me I'm a teenager, teens in tech, enjoy being a teenager, age, age, age'.
Am I the only person reading about this wondering what's going on? I thought a major part of being a tech writer was getting free stuff, particularly laptops, cameras, and such?
I mean, come on - "TechCrunch" isn't exactly the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal.
If someone had written "So and So intern got a laptop for writing an article at TechCrunch", I would have said "Awesome. Good on him. Hopefully he scores some more nifty electronics...."
I've never, ever, lived under the illusion that TC is some bastion of journalistic integrity... And I say this as an Avid and enthusiastic reader.
Essentially, it breaks down to if the non-journalistic party offers it to the journalist as part of the "review process" and it is disclosed it is ethical, if the journalist demands a random "gift" in exchange for running their story it is unethical. Speculation leans towards the latter being the case.
Actually, in the industry practically only review-specific gear is considered ethical (i.e., you are reviewing the product). Many publications even go to great pains to return products after reviews are completed, just for that extra measure of ethical cleanliness.
A recent FTC ruling actually made "paid" endorsements without disclosure illegal. TechCrunch could be hit with considerable fines if they didn't take action on this.
Relevant excerpt: "The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service."
Why should someone be bribed with free expensive products for writing a blog post?
He took advantage of the situation. It takes a lot of time and effort for hardworking people to make money and I don't see why a kid should be given a MacBook under unethical circumstances.
Let me re-write my response: Why shouldn't they pay for getting the advertising and millions of views of being on TechCrunch? Why should this be free?
Wouldn't the ethical dilemma be the payment for good results not the payment to be included in the first place? If consumer reports was running a review of vacuums and I knew I'd probably not be included, is it unethical to pay them to be included even if they don't give me high marks?
On the flip side - why should anyone pay three million dollars for a 30 second commercial during the Super Bowl. Having the ability to post on TechCrunch is the same as having wealth and he wanted to trade some of that wealth for a laptop.
As a fan of idiom and language, I'm glad to see the "mistakes were made" meme continuing in strength.
People make mistakes. Kids make more of them. Now with the internet, this mistake is going to live with Daniel for the next 80 years.
I'm really thankful that I lived in a time where you acted like an idiot when you were a teenager, just like all teenagers, and then folks forgot about it. But those days are long gone.
Meta note: It's very interesting to note the tone of some of the commenters here.
Except this is not just a rookie mistake. Turning something in late because you're still getting your bearings is a mistake. He knowingly misled anyone who read his posts. Maybe if he was offered a bribe it would be more understandable, he could have just thought of it as an extra gift and not be completely familiar with the legal implications.
But he knowingly asked for a bribe in return for writing a post. His actions shows an actual personality flaw, not inexperience.
I think it's a fair trade-off, a young person is given the chance to take on an important role while being expected to show a certain level of maturity.
