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.
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.
I second this. This isn't some internet troll that should simply be ignored. If left completely unchallenged, the base assumption by many not familiar with the context will be to take it at face value.
On the contrary, I think publications like Venturebeat are, quite literally, the professionalized form of internet trolls. If I'm right, it's definitely not a good strategy to engage with them.
Well...there are many that might not see them like that. I, didn't view them as that. Partly because I don't pay much attention to them, but when an interesting article that they wrote appears on HN I would read it.
But now, I am much more likely to read it with a skeptical eye - and possibly not even read it altogether.
This cuts to the heart of journalism.
It's the equivalent of the WSJ or NYT writing a hit piece on either campaign, just to find out that the author's wife/husband is a top advisor for the candidate - without them explicitly stating that in the piece.
The most ironic thing about the VB piece, is that the title is: "Paul Graham’s ‘lowball’ accusation of Google Ventures may hide an ulterior motive".
How ironic that allegations surface that may hide an ulterior motive for VB.
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.
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.
