Alltop.com

The truth is, the docs were stolen in a criminal and malicious act. That is the truth. The other ethics issue to 'Minimize Harm' was obviously ignored by Arrington. I guess he's not really a journalist so maybe these ethics don't apply.

Looks like TechCrunch is going to get smacked down by Twitter judging by the careful wording on the Twitter Blog.

It's plainly just bad business practice. People need to see through the obvious interest in Twitter activities and understand the real issue at stake here. Corporate espionage and a massive security breach.

One of the biggest issues media in general has is credibility. This kind of activity doesn't help out cause. I personally believe Techcrunch is way out of line on this one!

I feel sure @TechCrunch has made a mistake here and Twitter are going to be brutal when they come to deal with this.

Guy,

Let's not get confuse here. The Techcrunch blog is not written by Journalists. They don't stick to any journalism code of ethics.

I think Arrington should have kept those documents confidential.

What do you think, Guy?

my mistake: *confused

So, if I one is given stolen property, they can do whatever they want with it? Seems like a post-post-modern perspective to me. Yeesh! The moral thing to do would have been to return the stolen goods to the known rightful owner, and aid the authorities in apprehending the perpetrator. How would Arrington like stolen internal TechCrunch being blasted all over the Twittersphere? (rhetorical).

Actually, most newspapers wouldn't have published these because of the first two principles. That is, backing up the documents with a secondary source and giving the subject (Twitter Inc.) a chance to respond to specific allegations in the documents. All of these docs appear out of context, without appropriate weight or lack thereof. We have no idea if they were stolen from a 'Confidential Docs' folder or the Trash/Recycle Bin folder.
So they may be vital to the public, or they may be the drafts of the janitor. (Unlikely, but still.) When you publish news from hackers, you're taking a grand chance.

DC Grrl: How are these documents "vital" to the public? Even if they were pulled from a "Confidential Docs" folder or a "Junk" folder, how are they considered vital to the public? Remember, Twitter is a private company. If Twitter was a public company, maybe.. but in this matter it's a clear case of foul play on behalf of Arrington and TechCrunch as a whole. It's also a bit of grandstanding on Arrington's behalf. He did it because he could, not because he believed he had a journalistic obligation. And let's be clear here, these documents *could have* been severely damaging to Twitter. How does that serve the public?

Curious... how was this incident different (in terms of hype an 'ethical' analysis it's getting) with other hi-profile tech company leaks we see on BOTH Twitter and TC? No one, except Apple counsel, gets PO'd whenever a next gen iPhone spec surfaces. IMHO, journalism ethics and "private vs. public info" isn't a relevant bar for comparison in this case (legal or professional)... especially since these are essentially two "blogosphere" startups, not even the NYT or the National Enquirer. I mean, for Twitter to escalate legally, they'd have to defend why they're not screening NDA leaks trafficked on their own servers. Twitter and TC's content is largely built on crowd sourced rumor and innuendo, and frankly, we LOVE them for it. So, what strikes me is that these are two SV startups, professional colleagues, and perhaps even good friends... their business models are inherently complementary and their brands are followed by the same audience. So it's a knife-in-the-back, plain and simple. With that in mind, I can understand why the incident strikes a chord.

:) Ha! Ha! Ha!
How we can consider journalism, when even WSJ or NYT do not even respect some of the articles listed above from SPJ.org.
:)
And How sweet babies hears need to be cuddled by such noise (again) when all online business are starving attention from their own regular but already ripped off investors.
This is media business guys, wake up a bit.
Who needs more noise about their business than internet today to still make it a may be viable business, and how long will it last?
Show business & hollywood use the same tricks to sell products and Mags?
let's have a last thought to Michael ;)
let's have a tear to twitter now!
and hope it's still not time yet for the autopsy 1st, 2nd and 3rd:)

and let's find fresh "gogoes" for another round of investment,
it needs some cash but from where?

and when we talk about Twitter Let's quote a big figure to wake up people minds: what about Seth godin in a very fresh interview from last 13th july on http://blogs.forrester.com/groundswell/2009/07/seth-godin-blogger-an-interview.html:

-"But for me, the issues are distraction, time management, the little voice of self-doubt and the desire to push through the Dip of mattering.

Comments and Twitter are like a Fresnel lens.
You can use them to focus attention if you’re very disciplined and very good, or, if you’re like me, you’ll end up finding your energy and attention diffused into a maelstrom, lost to the winds of inanity, anger or trivia. It’s in my DNA. I can’t do it, just as I can’t read in the car.
For those that are succeeding (and I have to confess, the number I see isn’t as big as you’d think given all the hoopla) I say mazel tov. To those that are using it as a defense mechanism, an opportunity to stay busy while not actually doing anything, I wonder if that’s a good choice."

@Oli ... words worth repeating ... "you’ll end up finding your energy and attention diffused into a maelstrom, lost to the winds of inanity, anger or trivia."

... there are two apparent funtions in the Tweet world ... CB radio chatter and market sqaure Megaphone ... the problems arise when you attempt to blend these two channels into one.

Twitter is doubleplusgood. All untweeters are unpersons. Big Brother is watching.