top | item 4500136

The stunning hypocrisy of VentureBeat's attack on Y Combinator

27 points| ghost3 | 13 years ago |influencehacks.com | reply

17 comments

order
[+] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
Ironically, all you're doing with a post like this is helping her. The right response to bullshit stories --- the norm at Venturebeat --- is to ignore them and continue to cultivate the expectation that there's little good that will come from that venue at all. It's a Venturebeat story. Of course it's preposterous. Let's move on.
[+] marcamillion|13 years ago|reply
While I would agree with you normally, that's actually not the best route to take for attacks that have a certain amount of credibility. It's important to get out in front of it and debunk it.

That's why Obama always has people that break down the blatant lies that come from the right's attack.

Having a journalist write a scathing piece on the motives of an email that commented on Google Ventures, without detailing the connection with that blogger and Google Ventures speaks volumes about where the piece is coming from.

As far as I am concerned, VentureBeat is fully discredited. How can I trust what they say again?

Sure, everybody makes mistakes....but this is inexcusable.

It's the same way I look at Fox. I can't take Fox seriously, because they are so blatantly partisan, it's ridiculous. The same applies to MSNBC...so it's not a partisan statement.

The lack of disclosure, on a piece like this, is disconcerting.

[+] fleitz|13 years ago|reply
No kidding, VentureBeat should just change their tag to YBHT HAND.

Don't feed the trolls!

[+] debacle|13 years ago|reply
He does point that out in his post.

But you are correct. I'm only aware of Venturebeat when their drama makes HN or TechCrunch.

[+] neya|13 years ago|reply
Actually, this article by itself looks more like a rant than anything else and actually seems to defeat the purpose of an 'invite-only', 'quality-oriented' network that SVBTLE claims to be.
[+] domador|13 years ago|reply
If the two photos of Graham come from the same source image, then it looks like the microphone on the first image (http://5.mshcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/paul-graham.j...) was airbrushed out (http://venturebeat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/pg-lowball.jp...). (Unless a microphone was airbrushed in for the first image.) Just thought that was curious, in addition to the desaturation...
[+] mattmanser|13 years ago|reply
The shadow of the mike's been left on the cheek and there's some fairly obvious photoshopping of the wire on the ear and the t-shirt.

They've also removed the red-eye and spruced up his eyes.

[+] darkarmani|13 years ago|reply
The second one has shadows by the neck that were blurred to hide the mic shadow.

This seems like a lot of image manipulation for a "honest" journalist.

[+] ghettoCoder|13 years ago|reply
You know those signs at the zoo, "Do not feed the animals". How come we all learned not to do that as kids but can't help but look at the train wreck in motion that is VB.

VB uses the same approach as sports writers, be controversial cause the fans will read even if its just to complain about you.

[+] ocirion|13 years ago|reply
I thought that was just Business Insider.

VB occasionally has a story worth reading. But usually they're just rehashing what everyone else had yesterday.