But what good is that if the information isn't deemed reliable? I read, and enjoy TechCrunch for new product announcements and reviews -- almost exclusively, and don't really need it for much else, but if a significant portion of TC's "breaking news" is unreliable, then it may as well not exist.
I also don't know if breaking news is as important to readers as it is to journalists, for a number of reasons; Notably, I have a certain number of sites that I peruse per day, and I rely on them for the majority of my daily intake. I don't seek out news, and WSJ and NYT aren't on my reading list, while TC is. I frankly wouldn't know the difference if TC broke something an hour (or even a day) earlier than the next guy.
Really though, I think that TC has enough market/mindshare that they should focus much less on breaking sensationalism, and more on reliably reporting news as accurately as they can in the traditionally plain-English fashion that made them famous.
I also don't know if breaking news is as important to readers as it is to journalists, for a number of reasons; Notably, I have a certain number of sites that I peruse per day, and I rely on them for the majority of my daily intake. I don't seek out news, and WSJ and NYT aren't on my reading list, while TC is. I frankly wouldn't know the difference if TC broke something an hour (or even a day) earlier than the next guy.
Really though, I think that TC has enough market/mindshare that they should focus much less on breaking sensationalism, and more on reliably reporting news as accurately as they can in the traditionally plain-English fashion that made them famous.