????在TechCrunch今年早些時候舉辦的Disrupt大會上，TechCrunch創始人邁克爾?阿靈頓將《赫芬頓郵報》創始人阿瑞安娜?赫芬頓請上臺，兩人進行了十分鐘的交談。阿靈頓說：“我們倆怎么都成了美國在線（AOL）的人？”他們一起探討了美國在線收購TechCrunch（據傳成交價為2,500萬美元）和以3.15億美元收購《赫芬頓郵報》（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，阿瑞安娜會不會感到緊張。“你是我的老板。我得向你匯報工作。我們已經嗆過好幾次了。你也跟我一樣覺得尷尬嗎？我不擅長在別人手下干。將來能行得通嗎？”

????赫芬頓雙手緊握、兩腿交叉的坐著。她笑著說道：“目前為止還不錯。”

????然而，好景不長。上周晚些時候，《財富》雜志（Fortune）詳細披露了阿靈頓計劃推出自己的風險投資基金，TechCrunch的所有者美國在線將向該基金投入1,000萬美元。消息一出，這家苦苦掙扎的互聯網公司掀起了一波泄密的高潮：阿靈頓仍將撰文，但不會獲得報酬。阿靈頓將徹底“下課”。同時，TechCrunch的寫手們也加入了論戰，發帖哀嘆，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站被公然扼殺。阿靈頓發表了態度強硬的最后通牒，要求美國在線恢復其“編輯獨立性”，或是將這家網站回售給他。該網站的多產寫手MG?席格勒發表了一篇文章，名為《我們熟知的TechCrunch可能要玩完了》（"TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over"）。

????不過，少了TechCrunch這個新創企業界的驅動器，情況將會如何？事實上，形勢一片大好。

????在過去六年，TechCrunch將自己粉飾成新創企業界的“上帝”。新創企業家們從四面八方趕來朝拜TechCrunch，寄希望能沾上一些“靈氣”，當然，也希望得到金錢回報。企業家們紛紛在網絡上撰文，《向TechCrunch毛遂自薦的兩個成功案例》（"Two Cold-Emailed TechCrunch Pitches That Worked."）之類的帖子層出不窮。而新創企業們紛紛支付費用，希望能在TechCrunch舉辦的自我營銷大會TechCrunch Disrupt上，將自己和TechCrunch掛鉤。一些頗有名氣的公司（這些公司通常來自TechStars或Y Combinator創立的新創企業孵化基金）有實力不買TechCrunch的帳。但如果他們膽敢這么做，就會收到TechCrunch的挑釁郵件，質問他們為何不在第一時間奉上公司最新動態的獨家報道權。

????這種類似宗教感情的崇拜是相互作用的，從而形成了一個循環：TechCrunch之所以久負盛名，是由于其廣博的新聞。新創企業紛紛向TechCrunch提供新聞，又是因為TechCrunch的鼎鼎大名。當然，這樣的結果自然是TechCrunch和阿靈頓的股票節節高升。

????最初的TechCrunch并非如此。曾經當過律師，也開辦過新創企業的阿靈頓于2005年創建了TechCrunch。當時新創企業界哀鴻遍野，大家都在沉痛哀悼2000-2001年的網絡泡沫。業界急需一個英雄人物，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?阿靈頓這樣喜怒無常的人是否能成為道德的楷模？在阿靈頓的帶領下，TechCrunch蒸蒸日上，業務興旺發達，幾乎沒有任何獨立站點能與之匹敵。

????一段時間過去了。現在涌現出很多TechCrunch的追隨者。《華爾街日報》（The Wall Street Journal）旗下的AllThingsD、VentureBeat、DealBook、《紐約時報》（The New York Times）旗下的Bits、《紐約觀察家》（The New York Observer）旗下的Betabeat、GigaOM、Business Insider、當然，《財富》雜志也是其中之一。他們并非完全復制TechCrunch。（畢竟，TechCrunch的唯我主義很難被復制。）不過從新聞業的角度而言，這些網站會迅速填補由于TechCrunch倒閉而留下的空白。

????新創企業也會安然無恙。從此他們可以自由地將自己的獨家新聞告知各種新聞機構，而不會遭到懲罰。至于進入本已競爭激烈的市場（比如說團購市場）的新創企業，沒了TechCrunch將有利于競爭。沒有守門人意味著隨心所欲就能決定哪家企業受到青睞而哪家遭冷遇的日子結束了。

????阿瑞安娜?赫芬頓在與阿靈頓同臺時稱：“我們希望利用TechCrunch作為培養皿，它可以揭露和討論新聞記者沒有涉及到的多重利益沖突。”培養皿中發生的感染不一定會引發瘟疫。

????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.