Dear PandoDaily. Show me the money.

I realize I've written on this topic many a time before and you may not care. I know I'm the only tech blogger out there who dares question the Silicon Valley golden-halo-virtuous-ecosystem fairy tale.

I'm a lone voice on this subject but it needs to be said: are all the big Silicon Valley blogs completely full of shit?

Just yesterday, PandoDaily announced yet another high-paid hire. An executive chairman who...(wait for it)...wants to be part of:

a ballsy, independent media voice, and knows how to monetize it without compromising on editorial integrity.

Sure, fine. Whatever.

But is this a total lie? 

An "independent media voice"? One that will not "compromise on editorial integrity"?

I call bullshit.

PandoDaily is fully funded by wealthy Silicon Valley insiders.  Period.

And it vigorously, gleefully promotes the various myths of Silicon Valley: of a meritocracy, of the glory of venture capital, of stock options and IPOs, of new ideas (ignoring that posts reveal most ideas in the region are copies of copies), of being "entrepreneurial". Of a region and economy and economic *system* that is pure and good and unfettered by nasty bits like government lobbying and things like using monopoly power to crush innovation.

Please. PandoDaily and its brethren are owned. Just like the various blogs and online "communities" and websites that touted the glories of Wall Street back in the 1990s. 

I simply don't believe they can ever bring themselves to question the mythos, maybe not even ask the hard questions of the key players. How can they?

But there is a simple test. An easy way to prove me wrong. Show me the money.

Of course, I realize this will *never* happen. From the site we learn that an unspecified amount of money, no doubt at least in the millions, has been provided to PandoDaily:

I’ve also raised a bunch of cash from some of the people I respect most in the industry. This includes: Marc Andreessen, Peter Thiel, Tony Hsieh, Zach Nelson, Andrew Anker, Chris Dixon, Saul Klein, Josh Kopelman, Jeff Jordan and Matt Cohler, all investing as individuals. Also investing are a handful of seed funds including the CrunchFund, Greylock Discovery Fund, Accel’s Seed Fund, Menlo Ventures Talent Fund, Lerer Ventures, SV Angels and Ooga Labs.

That, dear reader, is an extremely long list of wealthy insiders. What's in it for them?

Perhaps they are merely like wealthy political donors, they don't expect a direct return on their investment but they most definitely will be rewarded.

How is it even possible the site can be impartial? How is it possible the site can question the larger issues surrounding Silicon Valley?

We are unashamedly part of the startup community. We love it and are advocates for the best parts of it, while we’ll aggressively call out the worst parts of it.

Can we legitimately trust the site to "cal out the worst parts" of the "startup community" when the very beneficiaries of that community are directly funding the site?

Can we even legitimately trust any of the myths that these well-funded sites promulgate?

Show me the money. 

For all it achieved with readership and pageviews, how come TechCrunch never went public? It went from funded to acquired. Why have millions been given to GigaOm? If Silicon Valley is about building businesses -- from scratch -- how come the company remains funded by wealthy insiders years after its founding?

How come none of the related companies, the tech sites that GigaOm acquired over the years were able to go public?

I suspect a bubble. But more than that, I believe we are *deliberately* not getting the full story of what happens in Silicon Valley and why decisions are made and who gets first dibs on a job, on a funding opportunity, on media coverage.

If *any* of these sites wants to be a "ballsy independent media voice" than have at it! Be independent. Or, at the very least, if you're a PandoDaily and releatively new, clue us in to when you *expect* to go public. You know, when the business has been successfully built and is actually earning a profit.

They won't. None of them do!

Can you think of any? Just one. 

On a weekly basis these sites are promoting dozens, potentially hundreds of start-ups. And the myth. They almost religiously-like tell "old media" how to operate, how to "get" digital and open and free.

If any of what they say is true then why do they all require sugar daddies?

Not just PandoDaily. GigaOm. TechCrunch. Engadget. And the rest...

Is there a single site covering Silicon Valley able to stand on its own two feet? You know, like a successful entrepreneur? And if not, why not? 

Is it because the wealthy insiders don't want that?

Or because these sites can't stand on their own?

Both of these are problemmatic. Both should make the reader suspicious and both call into question the grand Silicon Valley mythos.