????在TechCrunch今年早些時(shí)候舉辦的Disrupt大會(huì)上，TechCrunch創(chuàng)始人邁克爾?阿靈頓將《赫芬頓郵報(bào)》創(chuàng)始人阿瑞安娜?赫芬頓請(qǐng)上臺(tái)，兩人進(jìn)行了十分鐘的交談。阿靈頓說(shuō)：“我們倆怎么都成了美國(guó)在線（AOL）的人？”他們一起探討了美國(guó)在線收購(gòu)TechCrunch（據(jù)傳成交價(jià)為2,500萬(wàn)美元）和以3.15億美元收購(gòu)《赫芬頓郵報(bào)》（The Huffington Post）的事。幾分鐘后，他想知道跟自己這樣脾氣暴躁的人打交道，阿瑞安娜會(huì)不會(huì)感到緊張。“你是我的老板。我得向你匯報(bào)工作。我們已經(jīng)嗆過(guò)好幾次了。你也跟我一樣覺得尷尬嗎？我不擅長(zhǎng)在別人手下干。將來(lái)能行得通嗎？”

????赫芬頓雙手緊握、兩腿交叉的坐著。她笑著說(shuō)道：“目前為止還不錯(cuò)。”

????然而，好景不長(zhǎng)。上周晚些時(shí)候，《財(cái)富》雜志（Fortune）詳細(xì)披露了阿靈頓計(jì)劃推出自己的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資基金，TechCrunch的所有者美國(guó)在線將向該基金投入1,000萬(wàn)美元。消息一出，這家苦苦掙扎的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)公司掀起了一波泄密的高潮：阿靈頓仍將撰文，但不會(huì)獲得報(bào)酬。阿靈頓將徹底“下課”。同時(shí)，TechCrunch的寫手們也加入了論戰(zhàn)，發(fā)帖哀嘆，稱唯一的出路可能是最極端的，那就是這家大受歡迎的博客網(wǎng)站被公然扼殺。阿靈頓發(fā)表了態(tài)度強(qiáng)硬的最后通牒，要求美國(guó)在線恢復(fù)其“編輯獨(dú)立性”，或是將這家網(wǎng)站回售給他。該網(wǎng)站的多產(chǎn)寫手MG?席格勒發(fā)表了一篇文章，名為《我們熟知的TechCrunch可能要玩完了》（"TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over"）。

????不過(guò)，少了TechCrunch這個(gè)新創(chuàng)企業(yè)界的驅(qū)動(dòng)器，情況將會(huì)如何？事實(shí)上，形勢(shì)一片大好。

????在過(guò)去六年，TechCrunch將自己粉飾成新創(chuàng)企業(yè)界的“上帝”。新創(chuàng)企業(yè)家們從四面八方趕來(lái)朝拜TechCrunch，寄希望能沾上一些“靈氣”，當(dāng)然，也希望得到金錢回報(bào)。企業(yè)家們紛紛在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上撰文，《向TechCrunch毛遂自薦的兩個(gè)成功案例》（"Two Cold-Emailed TechCrunch Pitches That Worked."）之類的帖子層出不窮。而新創(chuàng)企業(yè)們紛紛支付費(fèi)用，希望能在TechCrunch舉辦的自我營(yíng)銷大會(huì)TechCrunch Disrupt上，將自己和TechCrunch掛鉤。一些頗有名氣的公司（這些公司通常來(lái)自TechStars或Y Combinator創(chuàng)立的新創(chuàng)企業(yè)孵化基金）有實(shí)力不買TechCrunch的帳。但如果他們膽敢這么做，就會(huì)收到TechCrunch的挑釁郵件，質(zhì)問(wèn)他們?yōu)楹尾辉诘谝粫r(shí)間奉上公司最新動(dòng)態(tài)的獨(dú)家報(bào)道權(quán)。

????這種類似宗教感情的崇拜是相互作用的，從而形成了一個(gè)循環(huán)：TechCrunch之所以久負(fù)盛名，是由于其廣博的新聞。新創(chuàng)企業(yè)紛紛向TechCrunch提供新聞，又是因?yàn)門echCrunch的鼎鼎大名。當(dāng)然，這樣的結(jié)果自然是TechCrunch和阿靈頓的股票節(jié)節(jié)高升。

????最初的TechCrunch并非如此。曾經(jīng)當(dāng)過(guò)律師，也開辦過(guò)新創(chuàng)企業(yè)的阿靈頓于2005年創(chuàng)建了TechCrunch。當(dāng)時(shí)新創(chuàng)企業(yè)界哀鴻遍野，大家都在沉痛哀悼2000-2001年的網(wǎng)絡(luò)泡沫。業(yè)界急需一個(gè)英雄人物，于是他們找到了阿靈頓。TechCrunch流量飛速上升，一些人物雜志也開始探討像邁克爾?阿靈頓這樣喜怒無(wú)常的人是否能成為道德的楷模？在阿靈頓的帶領(lǐng)下，TechCrunch蒸蒸日上，業(yè)務(wù)興旺發(fā)達(dá)，幾乎沒有任何獨(dú)立站點(diǎn)能與之匹敵。

????一段時(shí)間過(guò)去了。現(xiàn)在涌現(xiàn)出很多TechCrunch的追隨者。《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》（The Wall Street Journal）旗下的AllThingsD、VentureBeat、DealBook、《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》（The New York Times）旗下的Bits、《紐約觀察家》（The New York Observer）旗下的Betabeat、GigaOM、Business Insider、當(dāng)然，《財(cái)富》雜志也是其中之一。他們并非完全復(fù)制TechCrunch。（畢竟，TechCrunch的唯我主義很難被復(fù)制。）不過(guò)從新聞業(yè)的角度而言，這些網(wǎng)站會(huì)迅速填補(bǔ)由于TechCrunch倒閉而留下的空白。

????新創(chuàng)企業(yè)也會(huì)安然無(wú)恙。從此他們可以自由地將自己的獨(dú)家新聞告知各種新聞機(jī)構(gòu)，而不會(huì)遭到懲罰。至于進(jìn)入本已競(jìng)爭(zhēng)激烈的市場(chǎng)（比如說(shuō)團(tuán)購(gòu)市場(chǎng)）的新創(chuàng)企業(yè)，沒了TechCrunch將有利于競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。沒有守門人意味著隨心所欲就能決定哪家企業(yè)受到青睞而哪家遭冷遇的日子結(jié)束了。

????阿瑞安娜?赫芬頓在與阿靈頓同臺(tái)時(shí)稱：“我們希望利用TechCrunch作為培養(yǎng)皿，它可以揭露和討論新聞?dòng)浾邲]有涉及到的多重利益沖突。”培養(yǎng)皿中發(fā)生的感染不一定會(huì)引發(fā)瘟疫。

????At TechCrunch's Disrupt conference earlier this year, Michael Arrington brought Arianna Huffington on stage and the two played "The Odd Couple" for 10 minutes. "How the hell did we both end up at AOL?" Arrington asked, musing on AOL's purchase of TechCrunch for a reported $25 million and The Huffington Post for $315 million. A few minutes later, he wondered if she was nervous about dealing with someone as irascible as himself. "You're my boss. I actually have to report to you. And we've already had a bunch of sticky situations. Is it as awkward for you as it is for me? I'm not good at reporting to people. Is it going to work?"

????Huffington sat hands clasped and legs crossed. "So far it has worked," she said smiling.

????But "so far" only lasted so long. Late last week, Fortune broke the details of Arrington's plans to start his own venture capital fund and that TechCrunch-owner AOL (AOL) was pumping in $10 million. That launched a torrent of leaks from the struggling Internet company: Arrington would still write but not be paid. Arrington would be dismissed entirely. TechCrunch writers, meanwhile, jumped into the fray, publishing posts lamenting that the only way forward might be the most drastic: a full, public disemboweling of the popular blog. Arrington issued a stark ultimatum, that AOL restore "editorial independence" or sell the blog back to him. "TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over" shouted a headline from the site's prolific MG Siegler.

????But what would the startup scene be like without the blog that currently animates it? A whole lot better, actually.

????Over the past six years, TechCrunch has fashioned itself into the startup scene's Buddha. Entrepreneurs come from near and far to pay their respects in hopes of some karmic -- and fiscal -- reward. Entrepreneurs are writing posts like "Two Cold-Emailed TechCrunch Pitches That Worked." Startups are paying money for the privilege of being associated with TechCrunch, via its self-promotional TechCrunch Disrupt conference. The buzzy firms -- usually ones coming out of startup incubators, like TechStars or Y Combinator -- have a bit more power to ignore the blog. But when they do, they can expect dogged emails asking why they didn't offer their news to TechCrunch first -- and exclusively.

????This worshipping ritual, then, is as transactional as it is spiritual. And it creates a feedback loop: TechCrunch is the most-reputed site because of its scoops. Startups offer TechCrunch scoops because it's the most-reputed site. And, of course, TechCrunch and Arrington's stock rises further as a consequence.

????It wasn't always this way. Arrington, a former lawyer and entrepreneur, created TechCrunch in 2005, when a disorganized startup space was still grieving over the losses of the 2000-2001 dotcom crash. Startups needed a champion, and they found one in the blunt Arrington. Traffic soon jumped, which brought the magazine profiles wondering whether someone as unpredictably temperamental as Michael Arrington could be a force for good. Arrington willed TechCrunch into a thriving site and business, sucking up so much oxygen that few other independent sites were able to challenge him.

????For a time. Now, many sites do what TechCrunch pioneered. The Wall Street Journal's AllThingsD, VentureBeat, DealBook, The New York Times' Bits, The New York Observer's Betabeat, GigaOM, Business Insider and, yes, Fortune are all in the game. None of them are exact replicas. (It's hard to duplicate TechCrunch's solipsism, after all.) But as far as journalism is concerned, these sites more than fill the space a defunct TechCrunch would leave behind.

????Startups, too, would be fine. They would be free to shop their exclusives to a variety of outlets without retribution. And for those startups entering markets already clotted with competitors -- say, daily deals -- the absence of TechCrunch would allow for more competition. No gatekeeper means there's no arbitrary decisions about which are favored and which are not.

????"We want to use TechCrunch as a petri dish for disclosing and discussing multiple conflicts of interests that journalists are not discussing," Arianna Huffington said when she was on stage with Arrington. One contamination does not need to lead to an epidemic.