[beaker]

The interesting thing to me here is how the story is no longer about Path and whether their actions were right or wrong. In the course of attempting to defend their portfolio company, Arrington and Co. have created a new debate about the role of journalism in the tech world, pitting the VC-backed insiders and their well-oiled hype machine vs the hordes of unconnected outsiders seeking to break down the gates. This dynamic is reflected by the passionate reactions coming fast and furiously from both sides. It could get ugly, but in the long run it's probably a good thing for everyone to have this discussion.

[feralchimp]

As Lyons notes, the debate around pay-to-play or other more subtle conflicts of interest in tech journalism has been around for a while, and is probably here to stay.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that anyone publicly sided with Path after their app behavior was exposed. There just is no spin spinny enough for that job. That it was Arrington and MG giving it the old college try just adds some extra lulz/wtf to the scene.

[onemoreact]

People spin things that actually kill thousands of people every year. Why do you think your privacy is going to be more respected than your life?

EX: Clean Coal

[tucson]

I don't agree that this debate necessarily will stay. Legislation can change that. Infomercials on tv have been reigned in because consumers associations came to defend consumers. Ads desguised as journalism (which is what this is all about here, I believe) are very efficient ways to sell. Check out Dan Kennedy's work, or any direct marketer's tricks.

[onemoreact]

People spin things that actually kill thousands of people every year. Why do you think your privacy is going to be more respected than your life?