Sorry, to say that ,but if a journalist is able to destroy your friends business, maybe the business wasn't that valid to begin with? Why did nobody trust it that much, that a simple press release on the start-ups page would counter the journalist's arguments?
Your polemic rant does nothing to explain, helps nobody - not even your friend. Not one fact in this piece only name-calling.
You could have taken the stand, talking about what said journalist wrote - and why it is wrong. Could have explained the facts. You could even have given your friend the opportunity, to counter what said journalist wrote and tell the facts, as they are from his point of view.
But you just took the easy way. Ranting, name-calling, denouncing a journalist (who may have done everything wrong, but I can't know this), without showing prove that anything you say is true.
I believe that if you need to upload a press release on your Website it's far too late. The damage has been done at that point. If you don't even fact-check on these kind of posts that destroy people's companies & lives you're just not worthy.
Well. I am the last person, to believe in the integrity of most so called journalists.
My problem is, that the blogpost did nothing to answer any question at all. What did the so called journalist write and what were the "real" facts. And so on.
It was nothing but a rant, shaming and name-calling a journalist. Nothing more.
And believe me a lot of companies young or old, big or small have had bad press. Oftentimes total lies by so called journalists and oftentimes rightly so.
But non the less even the worst press did not kill every single one of them. So declaring this journalist to be solely responsible, without telling the facts is just trolling, ranting and blowing off steam - and does contribute nothing to a grown up discussion about ethics of journalism and what journalism should be like.
So, Emerce is to blame for reporting a bankruptcy and show the picture of its founder? And destroy his career? We're sorry, but Emerce reported probably 30 or so bankruptcies this year alone, including startups. And unless Mr. Van Leeuwen, we don't think a bankrupcy is a crime.
Also, Mr Van Leeuwen seems to think we couldn't reach the founder, while he himself 'had absolutely no trouble reaching him'. Actually, we left a message at a mobile number mentioned at the site and then called the main venture capitalist, who promised to call us back later that day to explain what happened. I made another attempt much later that day after the story was published, but unfortunately couldn't reach no one again.
However, could it be that there are some personal axes to grind? Unless the founder of the bankrupt company, I know Vincent. He turned up 20 - 30 minutes late on an interview with Emerce some time ago. He wasn't too happy with my draft, and I wasn't too happy with his comments, and told him turning up late at interview for a big publication wasn't a good idea. We managed to agree on a final draft, though, and I'm sure his company enjoyed the publicity.
So, blaming Emerce for 'not stepping up for entrepreneurial culture' is unfair.
First of all: Props for responding. It's a brave thing to do and I much appreciate it.
Secondly: Although I fully follow your sentiment regarding personal axis, let me assure you that I don't think this is about you or me. It's about how some people I know have been treated over the past week. I don't even believe that this happened on purpose. I just think it's sloppy journalism and it's not how you should treat people.
7 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 24.7 ms ] threadYour polemic rant does nothing to explain, helps nobody - not even your friend. Not one fact in this piece only name-calling.
You could have taken the stand, talking about what said journalist wrote - and why it is wrong. Could have explained the facts. You could even have given your friend the opportunity, to counter what said journalist wrote and tell the facts, as they are from his point of view.
But you just took the easy way. Ranting, name-calling, denouncing a journalist (who may have done everything wrong, but I can't know this), without showing prove that anything you say is true.
My problem is, that the blogpost did nothing to answer any question at all. What did the so called journalist write and what were the "real" facts. And so on.
It was nothing but a rant, shaming and name-calling a journalist. Nothing more.
And believe me a lot of companies young or old, big or small have had bad press. Oftentimes total lies by so called journalists and oftentimes rightly so.
But non the less even the worst press did not kill every single one of them. So declaring this journalist to be solely responsible, without telling the facts is just trolling, ranting and blowing off steam - and does contribute nothing to a grown up discussion about ethics of journalism and what journalism should be like.
Also, Mr Van Leeuwen seems to think we couldn't reach the founder, while he himself 'had absolutely no trouble reaching him'. Actually, we left a message at a mobile number mentioned at the site and then called the main venture capitalist, who promised to call us back later that day to explain what happened. I made another attempt much later that day after the story was published, but unfortunately couldn't reach no one again.
However, could it be that there are some personal axes to grind? Unless the founder of the bankrupt company, I know Vincent. He turned up 20 - 30 minutes late on an interview with Emerce some time ago. He wasn't too happy with my draft, and I wasn't too happy with his comments, and told him turning up late at interview for a big publication wasn't a good idea. We managed to agree on a final draft, though, and I'm sure his company enjoyed the publicity.
So, blaming Emerce for 'not stepping up for entrepreneurial culture' is unfair.
First of all: Props for responding. It's a brave thing to do and I much appreciate it.
Secondly: Although I fully follow your sentiment regarding personal axis, let me assure you that I don't think this is about you or me. It's about how some people I know have been treated over the past week. I don't even believe that this happened on purpose. I just think it's sloppy journalism and it's not how you should treat people.