When journalists try to take down startups

Dear readers,

Sitting at a cafe, an executive at a tech company once lamented to me about how journalists seem eager to take down startups. I flashed a sorry smile: The media is indeed drawn to bad news like bees to a honeypot.

That got me thinking about the state of tech journalism. On one end of the spectrum, you have sites rewriting press releases. On the other end, you see outlets disregarding journalistic objectivity to report about the startup ecosystem with skepticism that’s usually fed by anonymously sourced information.

Media outlets have their own way of striking a balance between positive and negative coverage. While Tech in Asia publishes complex, sensitive pieces, we also carry plenty of company announcements, though we’re figuring out ways to make them more insightful.

Whenever publications skew too far in one direction or the other, they create a risky situation. Many believe that there’s a certain nobility in journalism. We aren’t in it for the money, journalists tell themselves, we’re here to hold people accountable.

Photo credit: Unsplash

But journalists can also act like assholes and justify their behavior with a refrain: “We’re just doing our jobs of upholding freedom of speech.” I’ve certainly made this mistake myself.

Often, reporters don’t provide companies ample opportunity for comment, or publish malicious insinuations without providing ample evidence. It can also be as innocuous as writing copy that’s snappy and eye-catching but isn’t fair or accurate.

Sadly, even subscription-based publications aren’t immune from sensationalism. It turns out that many readers enjoy seeing journalists dissect other people with a scalpel, while forgetting that they could one day be stabbed in the back by those same hacks. It’s like the gladiator games in Imperial Rome, but fought with sharp words and subtle deception instead of deadly weapons.

This sets a dangerous precedent: Feeding the bloodlust of trolls only creates echo chambers where arguments are not won with logic, but with savage takedowns.

“All these are eroding my love for journalism,” a colleague told me. “I think it’s overrated, and I prefer to read analyst reports. At least analysts put up their methodologies and always have numbers to back their work.”

Sadly, even as a journalist, I agree with this sentiment. The media – and we’re not just talking about tech publications – is seeing backlash over perceived biases and lazy reporting.

A core issue is the use of unnamed sources. Tech in Asia routinely uses anonymous sources for good reason – it’s the only way for ex-employees to avoid retribution for speaking up honestly.

I know how this method can be easily abused, so we do our best to scrutinize our sources, named or otherwise. But even then, articles can still become he-said-she-said debacles.

For readers, it all boils down to whether you trust the publication and its processes, which are generally opaque. And I can tell you that media outlets, including Tech in Asia, struggle to get it exactly right. We’ve certainly made our fair share of mistakes.

A lot of work goes into verifying what sources say and deciding what ends up going into the story or on the cutting room floor. Publishing serious allegations – or even milder ones – could cost jobs and millions of dollars, so extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Tech in Asia does its best to talk to the company’s CEO and key people to get their version of the story, too. And when we do that, we give them space to comment without any pre-judgment or hidden agenda.

In the long run, moderation and restraint wins.

We also try to communicate our approach as much as possible, which is what this letter is about. This is crucial when we’re chasing a sensitive story. In the past year alone, we’ve had our fair share of behind-the-scenes drama with companies, lawyers, government officials, and even our own investors, who bristled at our tough stories.

At one point, the CEO of a prominent unicorn called us “heartless.” But CEOs also consistently tell us that we’ve been fair to them, even when we asked them uncomfortable questions. We have readers who love us and critics who hate us. In this line of work, it’s impossible to please everyone – not that we should.

Instead, we’re always asking ourselves this: How do we publish content that best serves our ideals and the industry? Close to two years after launching our subscription business, I believe we are closer to an answer.

We believe that in the long run, moderation and restraint wins. We believe in building up the tech ecosystem rather than tearing it down for the sake of schadenfreude.

Yes, we’ll publish stories based on press releases, because they do serve a real need. But we’ll also continue pursuing hard-hitting stories injected with deep analysis.

We’ll keep on reflecting, refining, and experimenting – and we hope you’ll subscribe and join us on this journey. If you have any thoughts to share, I’d love to hear from you.

On to last week’s stories:

Can online food delivery ever be profitable? by Putra Muskita

Meituan did it in China, but is its success replicable outside the country? We tried to find out.

Trouble at LenddoEFL: Staff departures, culture clashes, and a contentious hire by Melissa Goh

Once heralded as a promising fintech startup, the company has faced some internal battles in recent years.

Exclusive: One Championship CEO explains what’s next after steep layoffs by Joseph Gan

Critics of One Championship have been vocal about their dislike for the sports media company. We asked the founder some probing questions.

10 tech investment winners for a post-Covid world by Vincent Fernando

Covid-19 is changing the world, and along with that comes investment and business opportunities. We survey what these are.

50 rising startups in India, These are the most active investors in Southeast Asia’s startups

Our popular lists of startups and investors that you should watch.

That’s all from me this week. I’ll see you next time.

Cheers,

Terence
Chief Editor