Given TechCrunch's struggles with credibility over the past few years, maybe it should have been more of an issue.
In the end though, you're right: Giving thanks doesn't hurt anyone too much. But giving thanks for any of the things I mentioned is infinitely better than giving thanks just for the act of covering (or worse yet, the resulting traffic/business).
The author states that there were no PR firms or "crazy pitches," but he was absolutely doing PR. He was absolutely pitching. At some point, PR and sleazy PR got conflated in the tech industry. This is just solid, traditional media relations, a big part of PR.
So, even beyond the obviously terrible positioning of "still relevant" (who wants to be argued for in that way?), this article doesn't do TC any favors.
SAI/former VentureBeat reporter here: it's considered a moderate offense. Could infer to your/our Twitter followers etc. that there was an exchange for positive coverage, which is a pop at our credibility.
Credibility is basically all we have. (However small it is.)
IMO, On the consumer side credibility is not as important in tech journalism when compared to say political reporting. Products get canceled, startups die, so you would have to predict the future to always be relevant. Having connections and finding interesting stories / ideas and knowing how to critique them is more important than knowing the iPad7's release date.
We have all read bad spin, and honestly it quickly becomes noise.
In the end though, you're right: Giving thanks doesn't hurt anyone too much. But giving thanks for any of the things I mentioned is infinitely better than giving thanks just for the act of covering (or worse yet, the resulting traffic/business).
The author states that there were no PR firms or "crazy pitches," but he was absolutely doing PR. He was absolutely pitching. At some point, PR and sleazy PR got conflated in the tech industry. This is just solid, traditional media relations, a big part of PR.
So, even beyond the obviously terrible positioning of "still relevant" (who wants to be argued for in that way?), this article doesn't do TC any favors.