#david carr

David Carr:

The growing intellectual currency of television has altered the cultural conversation in fundamental ways. Water cooler chatter is now a high-minded pursuit, not just a way to pass the time at work. The three-camera sitcom with a laugh track has been replaced by television shows that are much more like books — intricate narratives full of text, subtext and clues.

Or like really good films — that happen to be seven, or ten, or fifteen hours long!

It really is pretty amazing that television has gone from utter garbage to one of the better forms of visual art in a relatively short amount of time. And that speaks well to the resurgence of other left-for-dead mediums.

It’s Not A Mirror, It’s A Crystal Ball

Aside from a few tweets, I’ve mainly stayed out of the latest TechCrunch brouhaha. These things tend to flare up every few months, and they ultimately end up meaning nothing. But I would like to address one thing in particular, because The New York Times’ David Carr names me specifically in his article on the matter today.

More generally, it occurs to me that a lot of these posts are based around a fundamental misunderstanding of how TechCrunch actually works. Journalists seem to think they can write about TechCrunch as if they’re looking in a mirror. That is to say, they think our operation runs in a similar manner to theirs and they use that as a jumping off point for misguided (but predictable) outrage. In reality, what they’re looking at when they look at TechCrunch is a crystal ball.

So gather ‘round everyone, to learn how TechCrunch actually works.

Read More