Read on Twitter
Putting aside this specific battle, what if the reason VCs think NYT etc always negative in their tech coverage has less to do with journo bias as it does the gap between what gets coverage and what doesn't.
BORING THREAD ABOUT PR/JOURNOS/VCs
BORING THREAD ABOUT PR/JOURNOS/VCs
First, for the credentialists, this is actually something I know a little about, unlike almost all other things on the planet. I ran comms at Google. I've also been a founder, worked in tech + non-tech roles at start-ups. Was also a journo for 2 mins very early in career.
So, what is worthy of a tech story in a natl paper? Lots of things, but e.g.: trend stories ("more ppl using remote collab tools during SIP"), compelling human stories ("twins sep. at birth discover each other thru Github!"), groundbreaking research, day2day coverage of FAANG
If ur a VC, huge % of your cos still relatively under-the-radar at a national level. Sure, the co may be amazing, w/ millions of users, but what does that story tell us about the world, how is it relevant when taken up a meta level from the actual product?
Meanwhile, they see that FAANG cos take a daily beating in the press. That hasn't historically been the case, but it's true right now. Some of it is OTT but a lot isn't. And yes, I felt that way even when I ran Google PR.
It all feels net negative to VCs/others in the tech industry. I also think the industry as a whole gets dragged down by bad actors/bad actions (which exist at all levels of the ecosystem). But exposure of bad actors isn't showing journo bias.
The press isn't perfect. Y, there r outlets driven by clickbait (the NYT isn't one of them); I've seen the way business beefs can translate into editorial agendas.
But don't attack journos, the maj of whom r good. It only feeds into the neg perception ur trying to fight.
But don't attack journos, the maj of whom r good. It only feeds into the neg perception ur trying to fight.
