Last Thursday, TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington and Tim Armstrong, CEO of AOL, announced the creation of a new venture capital fund named CrunchFund. But some folks, including David Carr, see a potential conflict of interest.

Here's why: Arrington's blog is arguably the most influential source of news about tech and silicon valley, and he evidently pitched this fund to Armstrong, who put $10 million of AOL's money in it, or half of its total capital. (AOL bought TechCrunch for an estimated $30 million a year ago.) This is arguably equivalent to the editor in chief of the Wall Street Journal owning JP Morgan... and also reporting on JP Morgan and its competitors.

Folks involved with AOL and TechCrunch insist the blog and fund will be separate entities. But there's an uncomfortable assumption of synergy between the two when they share a founder and a name. Many close to the announcement, including two of TechCrunch's prominent writers, were not exactly thrilled by this move. This is a potential conflict of interest in the tens of millions of dollars—something that's entirely unprecedented.

More unprecedented is Armstrong's naive disregard: "'TechCrunch is a different property and they have different standards,' Armstrong ... said in an interview."

I agree with him. Arrington himself doesn't write about the companies he's invested in, TechCrunch's coverage of those companies is not always positive, and the guy embodies full disclosure. Every other writer picks up his or her own stories and writes candidly, including MG Siegler, who shares his view that "if AOL tries to bring in their own Editor-in-Chief to run TechCrunch, it will be a colossal fucking mistake." Even if Arrington is mired in conflicts, provided they're all disclosed, I still want to hear what he thinks.

But he should probably stop pulling histrionic shit like posting an ultimatum that begins with a picture from 300. He should also care that he's undermined his blog's credibility.