Bad news for people who like bad news-gathering: it looks like startup mouthpiece PandoDaily will actually cop to its deeply conflicted editorial coverage. But only if you rub it in their noses first.
Pando staffer David Holmes took issue with a quick post from earlier today, wherein we pointed out another instance of the site shilling for a company it shares an investor with:
If you throw serious accusations like this, you should probably justify it with more than a one-sentence "story" valleywag.gawker.com/pandodaily-urg…— ¡ David Holmes ! (@holmesdm) April 24, 2013
It was totally fine, you see, because they'd included the word disclosure in the article. As if coming home to your wife and saying "Full disclosure, I just returned from a hotel room with my teenage girlfriend" would absolve you of anything. Even if you accept that kind of cockamamie reasoning, Pando still has a problem: it posts conflicted posts sans disclosure. Take this astoundingly shameless post on VC Tony Hsieh, which applauds his "visionary daredevil ethos." What you don't get is any admission whatsoever that Hsieh is an investor in PandoDaily, Pando founder Sarah Lacy's husband's employer, and that the post was blog brown-nosing at its most wretched. Tribute to the money king.
The post has been up since September of last year, but after bringing it to Pando's attention, I guess they realized they'd been caught.
@samfbiddle Hey Sam, I added the disclosure.— ¡ David Holmes ! (@holmesdm) April 24, 2013
One conflicted post down, ______ to go. At this rate, it should only take us a few years to read through every Pander post, check if it's blatantly missing a disclosure, and then complain about it on Twitter until they fix it. Perhaps Pando and TechCrunch can form some sort of unified conflict reporting system, like taking a number at the deli.
To contact the author of this post, write to firstname.lastname@example.org