After all, ghod knows that copyediting is journalism.

...is part of journalism. FTFY

And it most definitely is.

> is part of journalism

Part yes, but the poster said that Techcrunch was worthless because of the copyediting mistakes. That's not "part of", that's is.

There's a related idea which says that journalism is good stories and copy editing.

Both are wrong. Good storytelling and copy editing are part of good journalism, but they're not the whole story. In fact, they're not even the majority of the story, even though they're dominant skills of most journalists.

You should write for TechCrunch.

Whoah, that was an uncalled-for insult.

Ha! So your solution to my pointing out their errors in their pieces is that I shouldn't read it???

MA: "Hi I am Michael Arrington, I built and sold TechCrunch to AOL for $25 million dollars. We post articles online about whats going on in Tech, the Valley, etc... check it out!"

Internet: "Cool, hey Mike, I noticed that you guys seem to consistently make spelling and grammatical errors in your articles - they have good content, but is anyone checking them?"

MA: "WHAT! YOU FOOL! If you don't like the articles with all their errors then you SHOULDN'T READ IT!"

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. How about a better argument:

If you're going to call your self journalists and WRITE about technology and trends and the valley and what not AS YOUR JOB why don't YOU check your fucking work before positing it online?

I posit that you meant post. Yes? :)

Touche!