Marlow,

You seem to now be tossing a new argument out in your latest comment, I hope moving away from some of allegations in the original post.

Your new argument appears to be that I wrote more about Redfin and Zillow than I did other companies. I am not going to argue with that. (Though just to be clear: There are examples where on a VC dollar-to-news-coverage ratio, other companies actually got as much or more play on the blog. Check out Newsvine for example. Or you can compare mentions of Count Me In or Entellium versus Redfin and Zillow on TechFlash.)

Also, your logic on Big Fish, Motricity and some of the other companies is flawed. Big Fish, for example, only announced their venture funding in September of 2008. Will I be watching them closely now that they have raised $83 million? You bet.

Motricity, on the other hand, only moved its HQ to the Seattle area last summer.

Some other privately-held companies just keep a low profile or operate in market segments that are not really of interest to the general tech reader or consumer. And while I do my best to cover those companies and root out the information, they may not get as much play.

But here’s where we could have a good debate about journalism. And I am happy to talk to you about this as a person who grew up with a mom who was a newspaper reporter and who has spent more than a decade covering this beat:

What makes a news story?

There are elements to the Redfin/Zillow/online real estate story — including venture funding, consumer reaction, executive leadership, market opportunity, competition, controversial offerings, legal actions, etc. — that led me to spend more time on that story than say covering wireless backhaul solutions from Telecom Transport Management. (Didn’t you find it kind of interesting that Redfin, Estately, HouseValues, Zillow, Findwell, etc. all got started here?)

To me, it was just an interesting story, one I plan to continue to tell. (Both good news and bad.) Maybe I did cover them too much for your liking. I can accept that argument.

It’s kind of like the hydro racing fanatic or the Seattle Sounders fan complaining to Art Thiel that he spends too much time covering the Mariners or Seahawks.

Fine.

But to make some outrageous claim that I was somehow pimping for the companies or to insinuate that I was trying to somehow profit from the coverage really goes too far.

We could go on and on about what makes a news story. After all, reporting on a beat is a juggling act, trying to determine what is the most newsworthy story of the day.

If you do want to discuss any of this, please reach out to me at the email below.

Thanks,

John Cook
Co-founder TechFlash.com
johncook@bizjournals.com

I hope to see the newspapers find a creative way to stay afloat but I just don’t see that happening.

Maybe those firms lacked charismatic leadership. Perhaps they didn’t issue a press release blowing their own horn every week. Maybe some of the firms weren’t important because their main clients were female. I don’t know, you tell me.

I’m not a journalist, I don’t pretend to be objective and no one pays me either way.

Even if there was no bias I would think you’d want to maintain the appearance of no bias.

I mean no disrespect, I still read your column most every day. It’s just that I’m disappointed that some people in the media (not just you, of course) are so dazzled and impressed by a press release and a sexy gimmick.

I know it doesn’t sound like it, but I’m a fan. Really! I am devastated that we may be losing these incredible journalists and I think we will be all the poorer for it.