We were protecting a source. End of story. The majority of the time tipsters do not want to be named when there's a possibility they could be retaliated against (as is the case on platforms like Twitter, iPhone, etc).
What a cop out. This wasn't just a "source" who gave you a tip. The source was the story.
Without identifying the source, you end up with a crappy one-sided post. And without even bothering to critically examine the source's claim (that they were being hassled specifically for using the word "tweet") you end up with a post that isn't even accurate and that you've now had to add two update update to bring it back in line with reality. End of story.
Having seen the site, I think it's obvious to everyone that using the word "tweet" was the least of its IP transgressions.
I'm no big defended of "old media," but there's a reason you don't see newspaper stories mysteriously missing the "Who?" of the story.
I love it when TechCrunch plays the journalism card. When they want to run a one-sided story with no attribution, they're Woodward and Bernstein. When they're getting called on conflicts of interest, they're Arrington's blog.
