Totally agree!

yes, the comments are as entertaining as the content. well said.

Completely share your and everyone else's sentiments over the inevitable success of Pando, Sarah's star leadership/reporting, and the unnecessary histrionics re: journalistic disclosure. But I do take issue with your using the phrase, "unique female perspective." It sounds like a tampon ad.

Your comment was deleted because it included personal abuse. That's a pretty standard policy across all sites. Post it again without the name-calling.

My comment was moderated out of existence and it was nothing but helpful. It was in reply to PXLated responding to how he would have found the syndicate links and general info on what those links would be on just about any WordPress site. I thought Paul's detractors were being nit picky and overly harsh. Just looking for a fight as it were. However, since my harmless, and helpful comment got the shaft I have changed my opinion. I don't really need "Yet Another Tech Blog™." Good bye.

Cool - But, how would someone know that? - I don't see any links and the auto-discovery in Safari doesn't indicate there's a feed.

Probably they didn't see the need for it. RSS is not too used (at least not in a direct way). Most people only add the site to their News Reader of choice and automatically pulls the RSS without ever knowing what RSS is.

I agree that articles can be impartial, and I don't inherently see a problem with having backers. I'm not worried that the words I'm actually reading are skewed with this particular cast of writers. What does worry me is that the coverage itself is biased. It's reasonable, justified, and in no way immoral for PandoDaily's VCs to send them an email saying, "Hey, check out the new company we just funded: Whateverly." Then, Whateverly gets some free press, and PandoDaily is less motivated to cover Whateverly's competitor, Somethingbetterio. If the articles are based even a bit more on emails from VCs than from research or following company announcements, we suffer as readers. We're more seeing press releases from the VCs rather than what is interesting or important. For PandoDaily, the situation is even worse. If each of their VCs ping them about a new company every few months and they have a ton of VCs, they're going to feel obligated or inclined to cover those companies at the expense of competitors. There's a reason VCs are increasing intermingling with journalists. It's good for business. I don't think it's immoral, but I don't think it's good for readers, either.

You do seem to have legitimate concerns, but I question your intention behind these comments - being anonymous really does not help your case either. I have read many reports by Lacy, Carr, and Arrington and they have all been fair and great with disclosing information. I am a avid reader of tech news and this is my first time replying. Just thought I'd cheer you guys on for the great work you guys have been doing up to this point. I am one among many that are happy that PandoDaily launched. Cheers.

There's nothing wrong with being anonymous. I carefully cultivate the search results that come up for my name, and I'd rather they be my own personal sites than my comments on other sites. Also, Isaac is anonymous. Also, all you did was attack me and not explain why. What exactly are my ulterior motivations? All I want is tech news, and I want to see the coolest/best companies rather than the companies that are best socially connected to bloggers. That said, many of the best companies are, by the nature of their teams, connected to bloggers. I never said I see these things happening frequently, only that they easily could (and probably do).

they will not add RSS. They want to you come to the site and be subjected to ads for the start ups that are funded by the mountain of investors.

Josh, Are you asking that question as a curious independent observer or as a recently hired (by Erick Schonfeld) writer for TechCrunch? If the latter then, without a disclosure, your comment feels like push-polling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll Welcome to PandoDaily. Paul

The question is relevant and valid. I wondered the same thing when I read the article. Instead of implying that he's taking a shot at you, it would be more interesting to just answer his question. Your response sounds like a grumpy PR person at a large corporation with something to hide, and it actually achieves a smear on PandoDaily much better than the original question. It smacks of defensiveness. It's this attitude, of defensive, vague hostility rather than Hitchens-esque self-righteous hostility, that makes me avoid you're writing, Paul. It doesn't make me feel more informed, but it does incense me against you and, by proxy, any publication you're writing for at the time.

Thank you, anonymous commenter. That's the thing with push-polling, isn't it? "BUT YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION! WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO HIDE!" I'm pretty sure Sarah answered the question in her original post, and I don't speak for Pando. I'm happy to be explicit though: I have a career-long history of telling editors and investors to fuck off when I've smelt the slightest whiff of editorial censorship or unreasonable interference. I was the first to call CrunchFund bone-headed, and the first to tell Tim Armstrong to go fuck himself over his suggestion that TC had "different editorial standards". Anyone who has read a word of my writing will know I'll be the first to cry foul if any Pando investors try to affect editorial policy. Moreover, for an undisclosed TC staffer, backed now by an anonymous commenter, to ask snarky questions about the editorial propriety of Pando contributors is ludicrous to the point of offensive. Perhaps had Josh been around during the glory days of TC, he'd understand that close relationships with members of the startup community -- including VCs and other leading investors -- are how TC got many of its biggest scoops. And yet never once did Mike Arrington or anyone else hesitate to blow the whistle when those same sources fucked up. See Scamville, see Airbnb, see a million other things. As Sarah wrote, in an ideal world, we'd all be rich and able to fund the media out of our own pockets. Sadly this isn't an ideal world, so the best we can do is disclose, disclose, disclose. Something neither of the above two commenters saw fit to do. Finally, I note that you've made other comments on Pando, all casting aspersions on the writers. I assume your have some deeper personal issue with the team. Another undisclosed conflict. Paul

Could you answer the question though, Paul? I'm a writer with Betabeat, the tech blog of the New York Observer, and genuinely curious. Sarah name-checks AllThingsD and Kara Swisher, who, for example, has a very clear and thorough ethics policy in terms of protocol for getting information from her partner who works at Google. We're in the process of developing a statement that's as comprehensive. Will PandoDaily be getting information about portfolio companies or competitors from its 10 investors and 7 funds? If so, is it your policy to indicate who that information came from?

@Nitasha I just answered the question, above. Does that suffice? Also, my original ethics statement (written years ago, but still pretty accurate) can be found here... http://www.facebook.com/notes/paul-carr/pauls-statement-of-ethics/124385747645784 With an update here... http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/30/an-update-to-my-ethics-policy/ P

@Paul Very amusing policies, Mr. Carr. It's like you're practically begging to be called a rogue! I might be have missed the section that deals with this, it's almost 1am here, but I'm still curious about whether PandoDaily will source tips from its investors and if so, whether it will disclose that within the posts. This part of your response "Perhaps had Josh been around during the glory days of TC, he’d understand that close relationships with members of the startup community — including VCs and other leading investors — are how TC got many of its biggest scoops," indicates that they will be sources. But as a reader, I'm curious whether that will be divulged within posts. Thanks so much for responding!

@nitasha I'm not ducking that question -- I assume given the breadth of investors that some of them will occasionally also be sources, but I'm not a reporter at PD and won't be writing news so I really can't say what the policy is. All I know is that at TC VCs were able to be "friends" of the site, sources and targets, sometimes all at the same time. Mike would later invest in companies we covered, but if anything that just made him more driven to question them. They key was always disclosure.

fucking hell paul, I thought you were dead.

Paul, re CrunchFund being bone-headed, you really should have disclosed that we're an investor in your new startup.

Touche. Although my comment doesn't really make sense if CF wasn't one of my investors. Disclosure is exhausting. (Also: to be entirely accurate, it's CrunchFund's *name* that I described as bone-headed. CrunchFund itself I quite like.)