Why was this allowed to be published? [edited]by samgimbel on 05/14/2012
Here’s the article in question: Warren Buffett Is A Punk
Pure drivel. I don’t understand why this was allowed past the editor’s desk, and it has nothing to do with the position Altucher is taking.
I’ve edited content before, and I make regular product decisions. I don’t see how publishing this steaming pile of poo helps TechCrunch regain any of the glory it has lost in the last couple years. This is a good milestone indicator, the “beginning of the end,” if you will.
You don’t have to read it all to see why, either. Just sample a paragraph and then take a quick look at the number of fact-sourcing links and (lack of) footnotes. There’s no indication that any research was done or that it was even edited for consistency or grammar. If you’re a publication catering to a relatively picky, very opinionated, generally intelligent audience, how do you think you can get away with this?
edit: And, lest someone point out that Altucher has written books on Buffett and thus doesn’t need to cite his work, I wag my finger at thee. Good experts present evidence and conclusions both. Any analysis is incomplete without both parts.