During her trip to China, TechCrunch blogger and BusinessWeek columnist Sarah Lacy wrote an insightful post that success in China is “where patience meets speed” and quotes from a Forbes 2000 interview with Alibaba’s Jack Ma: “One must run as fast as a rabbit, but be as patient as a turtle.”
Lacy’s post on Sequoia China highlights that this stance applies toward journalism in China as well.
What happened?
On 5/15, Lacy initially posted (original version at Casperodj.com) some claims that unethical behavior was the cause of the departure of former Sequoia China co-founding partner Fan Zhang. On 5/17, after receiving some criticism from others familiar with the Sequoia China situation, she takes down the post. On 5/18, a revised post goes up, with this statement:
Update: I’ve updated this story based on conversations with additional sources.
So what was “updated”? Claims of bribe taking, kickbacks and unethical behavior, originally substantiated by over 20 sources. But apparently these claims did not stand the test of online scrutiny and was quietly and uncermoniously erased with a revised post, with no retraction or comment. It is as if the original reportage never existed.
But of course what goes on, on the Internet, stays on the Internet.
Using Microsoft Word’s “Compare and Merge” feature, I compared the original article (from 5/16 Google Cache and Casperodj.com) and the revised 5/18 version (in image form):
Techcrunch Sequoia China markup
I followed a 5/17 conversation between niubi, peterschloss, casperodg, and Sarah’s research associate tlimongello on Twitter. This tweet from niubi to tlimongello, suggests that the article was originally written without any contact with Fan Zhang at all: “@tlimongello sent zhang fan your mobile # and @sarahcuda email. guess she never talked to him? he would like to “clear things up”.
What is blogging? What is journalism? When does blogging become journalism?
This incident raises some interesting questions about the nature of blogging and journalism. The blogosphere sacrifices accuracy for speed and then relies on self-corrective function of blogosphere contribution to fix errors. But when the “read-write-rewrite” web from an influential outlet like TechCrunch makes serious charges of bribery and corruption, and then removes those charges without comment, shouldn’t there be some acknowledgment of the change, a public retraction, and potentially an apology if the charges didn’t stand the test of time?
In a comment on the TechCrunch post, Bill (@niubi) makes a case for a different approach:
Re-posting a comment that was deleted earlier today. please explain why you consider this inappropriate.
I find it disturbing that this article has been reposted almost 48 hours after disappearing from TechCrunch within hours of its original publication. The only change appears to be the deletion of a sentence repeating libelous innuendo about a former Sequoia China partner. There is no mention of that specific change, just an “Update: I’ve updated this story based on conversations with additional sources.” If your lawyers are limiting you to saying only this then find a clever way to tell your readers. Don’t just hope no one notices.There is no shortage of dirty doings in the investment business in China, but TechCrunch, as a publication with a massive audience, tremendous market power and aspirations to reputability, should know that you do not print allegations of criminal behavior based on rumors and hearsay. And you especially do not write those things without at least trying to contact the person about whom you are making these allegations.
Yes, you read that correctly. The author, an established reporter, never bothered to contact the former Sequoia partner in question before she wrote that he was dirty. He is very easy to find and at a dinner in Beijing last week at least three of the attendees have his number in our mobiles and could have given Ms. Lacy his phone number. But she wasn’t even trying to contact him. Again, that is not how credible journalists practice their craft.
In a tweet over the weekend @sarahcuda wrote “pretty surprised people who were *silent* in room when ppl said things about sequoia china are publicly calling me out for being unfair. ok.” http://twitter.com/sarahcuda/statuses/1819511453
As Ms. Lacy knows, I was one of the 8-9 people at the dinner in Beijing on Thursday night. She is the one who mentioned that Michael Moritz was in Beijing and that big changes were coming to Sequoia China. That comment spurred a discussion about Sequoia China among the party. Neither I nor any of the attendees with whom I have spoken remember any specific discussions about the partner in question, and especially nothing negative. In fact, she was told of Neil Shen’s reputation for being smart but very difficult to deal with, and of a BBS posting that circulated on the Chinese web a couple of years alleging all sorts of sketchy dealings between Shen and former Yahoo China head Zhou Hongyi.
We also discussed that the Sequoia China portfolio appears to have some companies in trouble, and the fact that their only public exit to date has been Asia Media, a company recently delisted in Tokyo for financial irregularities. Curiously, she addressed no questions about the partner in question to the dinner party. This group included several VCs, entrepreneurs and other people who have some knowledge about the topic of her article. After publication several of us were surprised that these allegations seemingly came out of left field.
So I don’t who she is calling silent or otherwise in her snarky way is inferring is a hypocrite. I didn’t follow the party to the Chocolate Club, so perhaps there were further conversations or moments of “silence” on this topic of which I am not aware.
TechCrunch should be better than this. Ms Lacy seems like a perfectly nice person, but this article is so poorly reported and unprofessionally written, and about such a serious issue (accusing a respected investor of being a criminal), that readers should wonder what kind of editorial standards are in place.
My answer: if it smells like an important media outlet, looks like an important media outlet, and has the impact of an important media outlet, then your freewheeling days of blogging are over and you need to consider time-honored journalistic principles more like the Wall Street Journal, and less like the People’s Daily or some Fortune 500 employee newsletter authored by the PR department.
Sequoia China may very well be stubbing its toes in China, and I applaud TechCrunch and Sarah Lacy’s attempts at increasing coverage of China on what is probably the most influential technology blog in the world. However, this example raises some questions about the nature of journalism vs. blogging, and highlights the dangers of parachute journalism in China (which we highlighted during the Olympics). Lacy’s initial insight of combining “speed with patience” is again demonstrated in this case where the true nature of the situation in China, even in what is probably the most transparent, most internationalized business sector of China, can turn out to be harder to discern than originally thought.
My Twitter request for Lacy’s comments did not receive a response.
Photo credit: SarahLacy.Typepad.com
-
Warning: Off Topic Post Paul Denlinger of China Vortex and I attended the TechCrunch August Capital party yesterday night. (Paul’s a bona-fide A-list China...
-
I’ve had the opportunity to watch Mike Butcher in action today, during Day 1 of the China 2.0 Tour. I’m always impressed by the discipline of professional...
-
“This is of course typical American paranoia of all points foreign. ‘The natives are savages! We won’t be able to walk the streets in safety!’” I...
China bloggers party down at TechCrunch August Capital Party 
Quote: British Paul Carr on American Paranoia 
Excellent post and a stellar example of teamwork to boot. While I don’t fully buy that Lacy’s mistake was merely an issue of “speed with patience,” it certainly stands on its own as a primary example of the challenges blog journalists now face when writing for a widely-read site like TechCrunch.
As someone who has been rather outspoken about the problems with villianizing “corruption” in China, I’m dismayed by the irresponsible accusations made in Lacy’s original post, which will taint Zhang Fan’s reputation far more than this reporter’s media slip-up. Corruption is an issue that certainly deserves more attention, but false whistleblowing/sensationalized coverage are detrimental to any efforts aiming to combat the problem and understand its culture.
The internet is a beautiful thing- as each mistake is revealed through tools like “Compare and Merge”, we will hopefully find greater accountability, increased transparency, a more level playing field and better journalism all around.
Aimee,
Having had crazy busy trips like Sarah is having in China right now, and desperately trying to find time to blog about the meetings and activity, I am sympathetic to the drinking from the fire-hose experience she is having and combined with the high pressure to publish something TechCrunch worthy on a timely basis. That is why I think the root cause is “speed with impatience” and not following the insightful point she made in her first post with the Jack Ma quote.
I think you have an *excellent* point about “villianizing corruption.” When covering China as a journalist, there are certain hot-button topics that are sure-fire ways to get attention. Some of them include: Internet censorship, human rights violations, T1bet, quality fade, dumping, China’s role in global warming and pollution. The term “villianizing corruption” is well put. Having said that, all kinds if sh– happens in China, doesn’t it? Post some of your links to your blog posts (up to 3 links shouldn’t trigger the spam filter…more and you’ll have to contact me to whitelist your comment) that help people get a more sophisticated understanding of the cultural and situational background of corruption, I’d love to learn more myself.
(BTW Aimee is on Twitter as @aimeenbarnes on Twitter. Follow her now for more China insight!)
Thanks, Elliott. Two of my posts on corruption that may be useful to your readers are:
Under the Table: An Introductory Course: http://tinyurl.com/apml3p
Under the Table: An Intermediate Course: http://tinyurl.com/czc7dx
There are several others floating around on the site and I’m putting together the final “advanced course” installment, which is mainly a resource list of experts in the field and their individual viewpoints on the subject.
As I was engaged to someone in China who had been accused of corruption, I’ve stood on both sides of the fence. “Everybody does it” and that is okay except for the officials and businessmen who are villianized because of it (not to mention their families). A long-standing cultural norm is now a crime punishable by death- this fact, to me, is where the real coverage should begin.
Thanks for your interest.
Here here. I’ve always liked the idea of bloggers being “guerrilla” journalists — common people without the corporate agendas of major media outlets. But TechCrunch, under whatever banner it started, is no different than Forbes, WSJ, etc.
Why does everyone call TechCrunch a technology blog? It so obviously is a business blog that just happens to focus on the technology industry. The companies they cover could be selling/buying/giving away anything and the focus of the blog would be the same – about startups and stillups and the business they conduct. It’s about money, and only rarely and peripherally about technology.
Ryan, I was intrigued by this situation partly because it raised the question for me of “What is Journalism?” Blogging is “unprofessional,” “unregulated,” “grassroots,” and doesn’t have a set of standards to follow. So as a blogger, when do I have to start behaving by these standards which, honestly, I can’t even articulate in a succinct way?
On the other hand, I don’t think Sarah Lacy and TechCrunch really are looking to hide behind the “I’m just a blogger” excuse for sloppy journalism. Here’s Sarah’s bio on her site:
But since I’m not close enough to the situation and my Twitter inquiries to Sarah went unnoticed, I thought I’d provide for some “face-saving” explanations that also align with my own blogging (and somewhat self-referentially narcissistic) existential questions.
Elliott’s Chinese Lesson Time!
Self-referential narcissism in Chinese: 自我自恋
自(zi4) 我(wo3) 自(zi4) 恋(lian4)
At CNReviews, we reserve the right to be part of the blogging pajamahadeen until we grow up or grow important, whichever comes first!
That phrase “self-referential narcissism” really stuck with you, didn’t it!
Yes, I liked it from the start! (Friends, Kaiser Kuo originally coined the phrase in reference to one of my CNReviews Twitter posts, along with “excitable dorkitude” which I’ll leave floating in the flotsam/jetsam of the blogosphere)
Now, is there any Chinese phrase that means “zeitgeist of narcissism”?
Blogging CAN be journalism, it’s just a platform to allow just about anybody to have a voice. I don’t think a blogger worth their salt should have standards any different to an established media outlet.
In saying that, bloggers and journalists are both human. Both will make mistakes. As Elliot points out though, how they are corrected (and retracted) is important.
But, while local bloggers and writers will snigger at their visiting brethren the outside perspective, I think, is still important.
Cankles,
A few reactions:
1. The standards and practices of a blogger are highly situational to the kind of blog they are writing. Someone’s online diary shouldn’t be held to the same journalistic standards of the Wall Street Journal. I contend a site like CNReviews should be somewhere in between. But with power comes responsibility. An online publication like Huffington Post has every bit as much influence as Oprah, or TIME Magazine. And yes, these bloggers “worth their salt” should have the same standards.
2. Agree that people make mistakes. I’m taking the time to learn from Lacy’s mistake so I know what to do when this happens to me someday.
3. Agree that outside perspective is important. But China requires humility and the ability to handle complexity, to question one’s assumptions, to be…yes…patient. Perhaps that is what irks those foreigners who have lived the longest in China the most…is that the business and media “tourists” come with a need to write a specific China “story,” and that they don’t take the time to listen and watch for what might be immensely more important and interesting. China, being so diverse and multi-dimensional, will yield to their search by providing evidence of whatever “story” they might want to write. But agree 100% that outside perspective is needed and more writers like Lacy should spend time in China and bring interesting stories to their American and Western readership. I applaud her efforts, even if the retraction was handled in a suboptimal way.
I agree with Ryan. Lacy may be “blogging”, but TechCrunch is a big-time media organization, regardless of how its comment is formatted (which the only really bloggy thing about it). Lacy herself is a professional journalist, not some amateur part-time rant-a-holic like, say, me. Therefore, between the two of them, one assumes some standards must apply.
I think the China factor is important here. It seems hard for me to imagine that such an unsubstantiated allegation would be made about any US business executive. Certainly legal nerve endings would have tingled simply by reflex. But a Chinese executive perhaps doesn’t activate those same reflexes. In a way its understandable, although that doesn’t make it excusable. I wonder if it simply never occurred to Lacy or the editors at TechCrunch that accusations of corruption in China might be treated with the same gravity here as they would in the US.
Will,
I offered the framing of blogging vs. journalism as face-saving angle because I (a) think about that issue personally, (b) was too lazy to summarize the essential tenets of journalism and how this situation violated them, and (c) couldn’t contact the writer to have more dialog. I don’t really believe Lacy thinks of herself any less than as a professional journalist, although I think Arrington has a “blogger’s” perspective on what journalistic rules he should follow.
Interesting point on the China factor and I intuitively agree that it seems the charge was leveled with more casualness because of the attitude “it is China and, of course, corruption is everywhere in China, right?” It seems that the issue of corruption is more complex and multilayered than just FCPA compliance.
*winces*
Elliot,
So you’re saying blogs like CNReviews shouldn’t uphold journalistic standards until they have reader influence like Huffington Post – or as you point out – TechCrunch?
You’re asking TechCrunch to be more professional, like other media outlets, but you’re not yet willing to follow those same standards because your site is a ’somewhere in between’?
Leaves a lot of room for interpretation in my book. You have to be transparent from day one, no matter what your influence – because we’re all just one Twit, Digg, Slashdot, etc away from instant popularity.
That’s a worthy goal. But what standards are we really talking about?
Separation of editorial from advertising? Agree. We will disclose if we are receiving any discounts or freebies associated with a post topic, as i did with my review of the Quintet Shanghai bed and breakfast.
Attribution? Agree. We always try to attribute our online sources.
What about verification of sources? We do our best. For example, immediately after the Sichuan earthquake, we got an unsolicited story from a source we didn’t know. Before we published it, we called her to see if she sounded real. I’m sure that verification would go further than that if we were really journalists.
So yes, I maintain the point that we can’t and am not obligated to uphold standards at the same level as a TechCrunch. But I also agree that transparency is important at every stage.
I find it interesting that your issue was with the publication of the allegations to begin with, where as you ignored the commercial relationship between Sequoia and TechCrunch, and any involvement that may have had with the revision.
I find it troubling that there may be the implication (whether this is fact or not is unknown, but the appearance is there) that those allegations were pulled at the request of a Sequoia, a major sponsor of TechCrunch conferences, a move that muddles the editorial line.
Mike,
my issue is not with the publication of the allegations. If they made the allegations and stuck to them, then that would be evidence of a researched and defensible position. Instead, they pulled down the allegations without any explanation at all. That is what I have an issue with. I think they should include a note of the correction or retraction and the reasons why. That is what is done in print publications like the Wall Street Journal and is a standard of journalism that I think TechCrunch should aspire to.
I have no idea why these allegations were pulled, and whether there was undue influence by an advertiser like Sequoia. I certainly have not made any suggestions that Sequoia was involved in demanding a retraction, did I?
I have made numerous outreach attempts to Sarah Lacy and @tlimongello that have to this date been ignored.
Respected magazine or blog, doesn’t matter. If one’s blog piece is in the nature of a piece of original reporting, one should not throw out such serious allegations without doing serious work to confirm.