last.fm scandal -1 (although I'd award him more than -1 for that :D)
Point is, someone else could probably cherry pick situations that make him look wrong.
Everything Arrington writes should be taken with a large dose of salt; because he is, essentially, a gossip journalist. And even before the internet you did not believe every word a gossip journalist speaketh :)
Often he is right. Sometimes he is spectacularly wrong. Sometimes, and I think in this case, he gets a rough truth and then tarts it up to make a bigger story (either deliberately or subconsciously, I couldn't say)
I think in order for this argument to hold true, you'd have to go back for four months (or longer!) and do the exact same thing that the OP did. That is: pick every single article where Arrington has predicted something based on an anonymous source and award points based on whether it was true or not.
Doesn't appear to me that the blogger was cherry picking in any way.
Point is, someone else could probably cherry pick situations that make him look wrong.
Everything Arrington writes should be taken with a large dose of salt; because he is, essentially, a gossip journalist. And even before the internet you did not believe every word a gossip journalist speaketh :)
Often he is right. Sometimes he is spectacularly wrong. Sometimes, and I think in this case, he gets a rough truth and then tarts it up to make a bigger story (either deliberately or subconsciously, I couldn't say)
Bottom line is; there is no point to this post.