Numbers will tell whether Jerry lives or Jerry dies. Numbers alone.

Many a pundit, in thumbing through press releases and press leaks aplenty the last two to three days, have repeatedly dealt fervent blows to the Yahoo head. Opinionators like Joe Nocera of The New York Times have done away with the garnish and are channeling Mr G. Reaper in all his ominous gloom and doom. Nocera himself today laid out a very apt prelude to Yahoo’s rendezvous with summer, saying what I myself have argued several times in recent past: Yang didn’t do as the shareholders wanted, and for that Yang might pay. With his removal.

To be sure, investors are understandably unhappy. You can see for yourself what some have said in response to mini-Microshoo in a piece by Betsy Schiffman of Wired’s Epicenter blog. They furrow their brows in just dismay. There’s absolutely no mystery as to the reasoning for their intense resentment. It’s all about advertising. That’s what it’s always been about. From the moment Microsoft publicly divulged its intentions for an out-and-out acquisition. From before that time, even.

Not only for Microsoft was advertising the chief pursuit. Yahoo stockholders themselves saw the premium given to their lagging investment and shared some smiles. Really, making the most of the eyes that Web Giant #2 serves each and every day is what Web Giant #3 had in mind, so as to perhaps better compete with Web Giant #1 and get itself some commendable ad revenue that would in turn put some plus signs beside its stolid and boorish ticker symbol. It had indeed been flat-lining for some time, and if Ballmer didn’t get to bag his wish for the original offer of $44.6 billion - which he raised a few big bucks to tip Yang in his favor, ultimately to no effect - then he might never get a good position next to Google, which has shown little sign of slowing.

Well, after a more specific attempt to put some ties between itself and its quest in the form of an ads-plus-search deal, with a good chunk of stock to boot, things still haven’t played out as the software king had hoped. What to do now?

(more...)

---
Related Articles at Mashable! - The Social Networking Blog:

The Daily Poll: Is Microsoft-Yahoo Inevitable?
Yahoo Sets $14 Billion On Fire
Developing: Microsoft Reconsidering Yahoo Offer
The Daily Poll: Should Yahoo Accept Microsoft’s Offer?
MASSIVE: Microsoft May Acquire Yahoo for $50 Billion
CNET: Microsoft and Yahoo in “Informal Talks”
News Corp Deal Not a Likely Alternative for Yahoo

When I read this I thought “WTF?” (with an emphasis on the “F”). Wired is a competitor to TechCrunch, but we’ve been on friendly terms with them for years now. Editor-In-Chief (on the print side) Chris Anderson and I were on Charlie Rose the same night a month ago, and Chris wrote some nice words about me in his post about the show. Wired’s Fred Vogelstein also wrote an awesome profile of TechCrunch in 2007.

So back to Wired’s slap at us. They seem to be concerned that I have personally invested in a handful of startups (all disclosed here) and we occasionally cover those startups and their competitors. And even though I disclose those relationships, Wired’s position is that the Washington Post should terminate the syndication relationship with us.

I responded to the article as succinctly as possible here (written after a night of heavy drinking at the Time 100 party) and then followed up with additional Twitter messages suggesting we hold a Wired burning party. I chose Twitter specifically for this response to make sure Wired knew I wasn’t happy with the post, but I specifically didn’t write about it on TechCrunch or even CrunchNotes to keep things relatively calm (I have 16,000 or so followers there, v. TechCrunch’s audience of 3 million or so plus feed subscribers). I also then let the matter drop, as I had made my point.

Emails to people I know at Wired went unanswered. Schiffman emailed me on May 9 with further attacks and a request for comments and details but I didn’t respond. Frankly, she’s proven herself to be a troll, and so anything I write might as well be public here on TechCrunch. And, as I said, I let the matter drop.

But then today Schiffman wrote a follow up article on the same issue. No new facts, she just wanted to reiterate how much she dislikes the partnership, I guess.

And if anyone thinks this is just something between Schiffman and TechCrunch, it isn’t. I have never met her and don’t know her at all. And her editor Dylan Tweney defended her when questioned about it. He was asked why Wired is now tagging every post about TechCrunch with “Buttmunch,” and if it is the way TechCrunch is referred to generally around the office and he responded “I don’t think it has come into general usage around the Wired.com office. We can always hope, though.”

My Response:

TechCrunch has financial conflicts of interest via advertisers and via companies that I have invested in. I’ve disclosed my personal investments - and as I’ve said many times in interviews, the grand total of the four active investments is less than I make per month in income from TechCrunch.

WRT advertisers, we do not specifically point out when we write about a company that has advertised with us, because no one does and frankly it would be nearly impossible given how many advertisers go on the site over time. We’ve created an ethical wall between editorial at TechCrunch and all revenue activities, which is run by our CEO, Heather.

The Washington Post obviously got comfortable with our policies, since they are syndicating our content.

Glass Houses

I question Wired’s intentions in posting about this, specifically now that they have posted twice. As a competitor they are clearly conflicted when writing about us, and attacks like these, including the childish tagging issue, appear to be little more than attempts to disrupt our deal with the Washington Post. And yes, that means that by the very act of attacking us and this deal, Wired is engaging in the exact behavior it says is unethical. Worse, they don’t even point out the conflict.

We’ve caught Wired in ethical lapses before (they subsequently added a disclosure to the article). And even the big guys are caught with the occasional hand in the cookie jar. I don’t believe we have ever engaged in unethical behavior of any kind on TechCrunch, not even the kinds of lapses seen at Wired and the NYTimes.

I have a lot of respect for many of the writers and editors at Wired. But as far as I’m concerned Wired.com, from Editor-In-Chief Evan Hansen on down to Betsy Schiffman, has clearly crossed an ethical line here. Perhaps they are giving up the fight to write relevant content and are resorting to sensationalist trash like this to generate page views. If that’s the case, it is a shame. I used to love that magazine.

Update: I’ve asked Hugh Macleod to do a cartoon for this fight, and have put a placeholder in until he responds. This is meant to point out how ridiculous this whole dispute is.

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.