Excellent. I generate lots and lots of communications every day and find that being misread is a way to score my effectiveness. Paul Graham points out that his essays can't really have pages of footnotes to cover all the possible interpretations of the writing and he is correct. We strive to make it understandable to the widest possible audience and go from there.

I suggest you really closely examine this thought :

"The reality is they are working for a company that desires to increase their bottom line just like any other business-- as they should. My point is because of this, the ecosystem is click driven. Which means a much greater frequency of startups will be covered. Which means even if a startup is doing nothing new and the technology is rather unimpressive, the brand attached to it means clicks ($$) so it gets coverage."

There is a whole lot of assumption going on in there, and while you do have to assume some things [1] its not true that you can assume all things. To check yourself you can try to reason your way from first principles to the conclusion that you expressed above.

You can stipulate that businesses want to be profitable. Some will argue with that saying some businesses are non-profits but the point is sufficiently accepted that you can get away with just stipulating it. Then you claim based on that one stipulation that the desire for profit makes the business "click driven." That bit of reasoning is weak, on what basis can you claim that the only source of revenue for the web site is "clicks"? And I'll assume you mean advertising clicks but how does that manifest here? The issue isn't that your claim isn't credible in the small, you can say 'Techcrunch is supported entirely by ad share revenue generated by the click through rate on its pages' (and cite some reference for this), but you cannot generalize and say 'all people who write about technology' live or die by the clicks they get on their blog. I will give you a really clear example,

Robin Harris writes the Storage Mojo blog (http://storagemojo.com/) where he talks about trends in the storage industry and the various players. He has advertisements on his blog, but he doesn't live or die by them, rather he lives on being a consultant to folks who want to tap into his wisdom about the storage industry. That wisdom comes from putting in the hours watching the industry. He doesn't care if you don't read his blog, but he does care that Tom Georgens (CEO of Netapp) does. But more importantly to this discussion he is a good example that your assumption about the relationship between tech writers and money, as a generalization, is invalid.

Walking through your own reasoning can be a great way of figuring out if you are 'fooling yourself' or are really on to something. You know others will demand you defend your viewpoint so having done the home work you are prepared to engage right away. Then you jump into this:

"When this is done at such a frequency, the greater the likelihood the companies that are doing dynamic things fall through the cracks-- creating a lower standard that isn't producing optimal results of what the space is capable of."

This is a pretty classic move. It reads like you have convinced yourself that the reason you haven't found folks who talk about these innovative startups is because all tech journalists are click driven, and thus 'the space' is not performing as efficiently as it could.

The challenge though is that your reasoning is counter to about 200 years of free market research starting with Adam Smith. It would be safer to start with the assumption that free markets work and are efficient and thus if you're not seeing the content out there that you would expect, you should dig into why that is. (hint: it isn't because the techno-journalists are click whores)

Last bit as this is getting too long, this one:

"And the only way to fully keep intact the integrity of this blog without question is to not monetize. This is a hobby for me. Startups are my passion and I like to write. I love giving product deep thought-"

Integrity comes from the author, not from the money (or lack thereof, I know people with no money and no integrity). Great to make a statement of your principles on your blog somewhere and actually stick to them. Do that long enough and people will believe you. The rest of this statement is pure gold, you are passionate about startups and you like to think deeply about them. So go forth and do that, write your pen dry as my grandfather once said. Don't over think it. There is a good chance nobody will care, but in your passion you will find reward (one of the ways I tell people they can discriminate between true passion and one that isn't, is people engaged in their true passion don't care at all if nobody else cares, just the doing is so wonderful that they do it.) If you cannot be passionate in a blog nobody reads, then perhaps its not really your passion after all. You will get lots of chances to talk to people and all of that research and thinking will give you a chance to make insightful observations and eventually, folks might seek out what other things you written, but it starts with you just following your passion not really caring if anyone else cares.

[1] There is a funny joke about a wife talking to her mathematician friend about commitment while driving around in the car. She says "You won't agree to anything, like there is a house painted white in this neighborhood, see there is one right over there." To which he responds, "Well all we know is that one side of that house is painted white."