Jumping to the conclusion that the end of TechCrunch is a good thing from that observation is bizarre. You could say the same thing about almost any major site, like Reddit or even Hacker News. HN has a good reputation and large userbase because it has so many awesome links. Why does it get so many awesome links? Because of its good reputation and large userbase. Not exactly a good reason to wish something dead though.
That feedback loop exists in every type of journalism. The Times has a great deal of influence so they get scoops, those scoops grow their influence.
That quote follows a graf in which it's asserted that TechCrunch directly reaches out to startups with news and harasses them for not providing TC with the scoops. For a variety of reasons I find this accusation --- the implication being that you can be punished for not playing quid-pro-quo with TC --- highly credible.
You cannot say the same thing about Reddit or Hacker News.
I would also note that Hacker News is rigged in favor of YC companies, in ways subtle and not. We don't mind, because whatever the sub- and super- rosa things being done to promote YC companies on HN, HN is up front about its bias; it's right there in the name.
True but it's not immediately obvious to everyone who reads HN and certainly those new to HN which companies are YC and which are not. And assuming someone from traditional media followed a link they most likely wouldn't see the connection and know of the bias.
tl;dr version: "We hope TechCrunch fails so our tech site gets more pageviews as a result."
I'm not a techcrunch reader (actually, I find it mind-numbingly boring) but I'm not going to listen to competing publications saying how great its dimise would be for the world.
Is it really the case that TechCrunch is so obviously a good thing for startups that the only reason Fortune could be criticizing it is out of professional rivalry?
I found the article compelling and, within the confines of the format of a mainstream media "blog", not at all superficial.
> Is it really the case that TechCrunch is so obviously a good thing for startups that the only reason Fortune could be criticizing it is out of professional rivalry?
Is it really the case that you infer this from my comment? I'm compelled to ask you to list ten other reasons I might not be impressed with the article.
If it's not Techcrunch that you have to cold email then it will be Venturebeat, AllThingsD, Forbes, CNN, etc.
Startups need PR (just like most other companies), so removing TC from the equation will only push that energy elsewhere.
