In response to the second wave of backlash from attacking PayPerPost and the numerous startups who take it personal when TechCrunch takes a pass on covering them, TC editor Michael Arrington gives his side of the story on Crunchnotes (emphasis mine):

I am an active investor, board member and advisory board member with a number of startups. That isn’t going to change. I also write about startups. That isn’t going to change, either. Obviously people like what we write on TechCrunch or they wouldn’t come back. But no one should think TechCrunch is objective or conflict-free. We aren’t. We never have been. We never will be.

All I promise is to give my honest opinion every time I write, regardless of whether there is a conflict of interest or not.

Mike stopped by the comments area here a month or so ago dealing with him calling his attorney over a trademark dispute. He disagreed vehemently with me that he should have contacted the webmaster and work it out and then bring in the attorney if things weren’t going well. As I reread the discussion this morning, I still think what Mike missed in my point was that communication with the parties involved is paramount. The minute you start dropping the word “attorney” into a discussion, non-attorneys especially get more excited. It’s the business equivalent of saying, them’s fighting words.

In the case of writing, unless it’s a private journal, the paramount communication is with readers. There are exceptions, some bloggers are sharing their private journals and thoughts like Dooce which become very popular using a private journal to blog format. In TechCrunch case, readers don’t ask, they expect Mike et al to be giving an honest opinions every time they profile new startups. One of my favorite parts of profiles are the personal opinion parts. Where Mike or Marshall puts some of their own skin in the game by laying down an opinion. A profile with no opinion wouldn’t work for me.

The problem with other startups feeling like they got dissed is the TechCrunch selection process is fuzzy and very subjective and rightfully so. If Arrington published the exact recipe to get listed, then there would be other sites going up overnight saying they had no such rules or criteria. That subjective selection process is the TC coke recipe. The secret sauce.

I understand not wanting to share that for competitive reasons. Where I disagree with Arrington on the trademark stuff and the communication pecking order, I agree with him here. He doesn’t need to come out and tell people why they aren’t listed. He doesn’t need to or have to defend the selection process of what he doesn’t publish. It’s wasting his time that could be spent picking out more startups to profile.

Heck, there are enough issues with the things one decideds to write about and publish. I’ve had to deal with some crap myself with a small few (fortunately) who didn’t like the reviews I wrote. Sorry, honest, worthwhihle reviews should point out the blemishes, not only the makeup and boob jobs.

Some people think Arrington’s opinion is for sale and that seems to drive a lot of the animosity. I think it’s more likely what Mike seems to feel it is: jealousy. The guy went from nowhere to somewhere pretty fast and I’m sure there are others out there working a lot harder than he is and not making anywhere close to the money. The internet is like that though, promoting shining stars very quickly. TechCrunch wouldn’t have gotten popular if the content wasn’t good.

Now TC and Arrington are in a different situation: the celebrity phase. Arrington is struggling with celebrity a lot more than he has dealing with startups and VCs.

A major key to getting his crunch network to the next level will be what Arrington does with the success. He could become a negative publicity hound like Jason Calacanis and alienate pretty much everybody he comes into contact with or continue to pursue his passion for startups, selecting the ones he feels strongly one way or another about, and write from the heart. I’m not sure his network will do that well if he doesn’t duplicate what he’s done with startups into the other crunch network areas.

When I met Arrington at Search Champs earlier this year I sensed that he was a good guy. Even though we may disagree on some things (passionate people disagree, what can I say?) like PPP being as evil as he thinks, I believe he’s getting a bad rap from startups they choose not to profile and mainstream media reporters not getting the same insider information. Might there be cases where his business conflicts look very coincidental to why a product/service wasn’t reviewed? Sure. Will he make — or has he made — mistakes with the selection process? Absolutely.

Personally, I applaud Arrington for being able to review his friend’s startups. I find it more difficult reviewing products and services where I know people involved than the converse. I much prefer to write and review products and services where I’m less likely to have any conflict or know anybody involved. It seems like Mike is the opposite. Thank goodness there are reviewers out there like him. Diversity rocks.

We read TechCrunch because of that selection process. He should protect that process the same way KFC watches over their secret ingredients.

• New TechCrunch Forums gives second chance to the no writes
• Misinformation, intrigue and trademark crush, another day at the blog office
• Another single page linkbait farm
• InviteShare a pump and dump site scheme or worthwhile service?
• Review: last 45 days of TechCrunch and OPML profiles date sorted
• UF study on cybersex, chatrooms and marriage