Hey, MG Siegler: About That 75-20-5 Rule Of Tech News

Somewhat accurate, complete bullshit, and actually true.

(Note: It goes without saying that views expressed in this post are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my current employer TechCrunch.)

Another day, another take-down of tech journalism. This time it’s tech-blogger-turned-VC (and sometimes TechCrunch columnist) MG Siegler, who, in a post published on Medium, proposes a thesis that he rather conveniently calls the “75–20–5 Rule”.

“On any given day,” writes Siegler, “I’d say 75 percent of what you read in the tech press is somewhat accurate, 20 percent is complete bullshit, and 5 percent is actually true.”

His advice to readers — and the sub-heading of his post — is “Don’t believe everything you read. Or anything, really.” As someone who has worked in the media on and off for almost a decade, I don’t think that’s bad advice on a painstakingly obvious and generic level. Of course media consumers should be sceptical. But Siegler proceeds to conflate so many of the issues pertaining to tech journalism that I’m tempted to apply his 75–20–5 Rule and file this particular missive under all three: somewhat accurate, complete bullshit, and actually true.

Methodology

Filed: Somewhat accurate.

First, let’s deal with Siegler’s slightly wonky methodology. He says that his newfangled thesis came about after some time off gave him a chance to “double-down” on tech news. “I set out to achieve ‘Pocket Zero’ and catch up on nearly everything I had saved to read later but never got to over the past year or so,” writes Siegler. A few dozen articles in and a pattern emerged that gave birth to his rule.

But let’s be clear, despite amounting to “a few hundred articles,” this wasn’t a random sample of tech journalism. This is the world according to Siegler’s ‘read later’ habits, and I’d wager he erred on the side of stories that were self-selectively more risky, speculative, headline-grabbing and, therefore, with the potential to be later proved somewhat accurate or even complete bullshit.

Or — surprise, surprise — actually true.

In other words, even if we accept the 75–20–5 Rule, the whole premise is based on Siegler’s personal tech news filter only.

First-hand knowledge

Filed: Somewhat accurate.

Siegler says he knows that some of the news stories in his sample were inaccurate from “first-hand” knowledge. This points to one of the most challenging aspects of tech-news reporting. Journalists rarely have the kind of first-hand knowledge that a VC and insider like Siegler will be privy to. Take for example acquisition talks, an undisclosed investment or a startup imploding. That’s the kind of inside knowledge you’d expect a VC to have on one of their portfolio companies. VCs also share a lot of information with one another; they are both competitors and co-investors after all. And despite the smoke and mirrors, VCs share the same end game.

The trick, of course, is for journalists to get VCs and other insider sources to talk, but by definition, even when they do, it’s always going to be second-hand knowledge, off the record, and often with dubious motivations. That’s where a mixture of a source’s track record, corroboration and good-old-fashioned gut instinct comes into play. It’s far easier to know you’re right the second time you report news based on a particular source. The first time can feel a bit like rolling the dice.

Conversely, VCs are often some of the worst offenders when it comes to obfuscating information, an irony that is almost lost on Siegler as a tech blogger-turned-VC. That said, he hits the nail on the head when he writes:

And, quite often, there’s an inverse situation where a company/investor actually wants an inaccurate story circulated for various reasons (spur a bidding war, etc). It’s gamers being gamed by gamers. The only losers are the truth and us, the readers.

Except, the only losers aren’t readers. Tech reporters take a huge amount of care and pride in hopefully not being gamed. It’s more often sweat, blood and sometimes tears, literally. I know because on this occasion I do have direct knowledge of the process involved to publish a delicate story, and the angst felt when things don’t pan out. Reputation is a reporter’s only currency.

The other losers, though, are starry-eyed entrepreneurs who, when the truth is obscured, are inadvertently mis-sold a dream.

Process journalism

Filed: Somewhat accurate.

Aside from the inaccurate stories where Siegler claims direct knowledge, he says that “time simply exposed the inaccuracies.” He later acknowledges, however, the role of process journalism — “get something out there and let the truth reveal itself” — and the wider “speed versus accuracy” debate. His worry, despite admitting that he was very much in the “speed camp” when a full-time tech blogger, is that speed has won.

“My fear now is that we’re veering too far into the world of half-truths and straight-up bullshit,” he writes. “Everything reported on, no matter how inaccurate is often taken as gospel and spread further. Speed and exaggeration have won, accuracy and nuance are nearly dead.”

The truth is, speed won a long time ago in lots of ways; the medium is the message, but not necessarily at the expense of accuracy or nuance. Instead, nuance comes in the many, many follow-up posts that spring up after news has broken. That’s when a story is endlessly sliced and diced.

Accuracy, on the other hand, should never be compromised in favour of speed. In my experience, speed isn’t usually the main culprit when a story ends up being wrong. We invariably sit on news of a delicate nature for days if not weeks. If anything, we kick ourselves for not publishing more quickly, rather than publishing too soon.

Siegler also makes the argument that it’s “increasingly rare” that tech news sites are “held accountable for inaccuracies.” I share his viewpoint, though I disagree with his reasons why. “Those with knowledge of the actual truth rarely speak out because, what’s the point?” writes Siegler. “In our age of breakneck news cycles, a story will likely be forgotten about the next day unless you make a stink about it.”

It’s true that today’s news is tomorrow’s fish ‘n’ chip paper, as we say in the U.K. However, those with knowledge of the “actual truth” rarely speak out because it’s not usually in their perceived interests to do so and they’re too afraid of getting burned. And not because they think nobody is interested. That’s why journalists shout loudly about protecting sources. Everybody says they’d like the tech industry to be more open, but very few of the same insiders are willing to make the first move.

Don’t be lazy

Filed: complete bullshit.

Towards the end of the post, Siegler rather lazily implies that tech journalists are lazy. Time-pressured, yes. But lazy is the exception. (Seriously, most tech reporters work crazy hours.) It also completely ignores the economics of online news, which he would understand more than most.

I’ll propose a different thesis: The tech news sites with the highest proportion of straight-up press release rewrites and the least original reporting are the ones with the fewest resources — i.e. fewer or inexperienced writers and editors — or a business model that incentivises quantity over quality. In fact, I suspect that the best so-called “churnalists” in the business are also some of the hardest-working.

Triangulation

Filed: Actually true.

Finally, Siegler quite rightly says that the “best way to get to the truth is often to triangulate.” That’s journalism 101. “The likelihood that you’re going to get all the information you need from one source is infinitesimal,” he writes. “Get bits at a time. Play that information off each other. Get creative.”

Of course, it’s a lot harder to triangulate when there’s a whole army of people trying to jam your signal.

In signing off, however, Siegler issues the following salient advice:

Don’t write something because you can. Write something because you should. Or don’t write anything at all.

That’s something that we would all do well to remember.