Anyone left on HN who still wants to stand up for Arrington's reputation as a journalist?
Apple lied in an official FCC inquiry. That's news.
Arrington is seeking to bribe a Google employee to betray his employer by breaching his NDA.
The vast majority of news leaks throughout history have been based on ulterior motives; whether they are politically or financially-based, seems inconsequential. TechCrunch isn't a party to that NDA, so they should only consider the public interest of the story.
If the information gets leaked, they're victimized even further by being deprived of a bargaining chip with Apple.
What bargaining chip? The ability to collude to scuttle a government investigation? If the FCC asks for the letter, Google has to give it up anyways.
Can someone point out the lie to me?
But perhaps they would prefer for Apple to just get so uncomfortable over the poking around they accept Voice off bat in an attempt to take the heat off.
Which means Google have that rejection letter as big guns at any later stage.
Yes Google have to give it to the FCC if they ask for it - but if they don't ask (I am not 100% sure of the rules here) they don't have to mention it or do more than vaguely hint at it's existence.
And the fact that sarcasm doesn't translate over the internet well doesn't help any. Or, as I have refered to it: damn you internet and your lack of signifying sarcasm, or, in the semi-pronouncable internet acronym form: DYIAYLOSS.
I believe (!) should become a standard for sarcasm on the web, it would at least hint people that the line is different from the norm.
Of course I never seriously thought the company had a case(especially against me). I just took a public link and fwded it to someone who made it big. Very different from leaking.
The meaning of this is completely changed if you parse it like:
I once passed on a story...
i mean, sure, we’d take the docs and deliver the tshirt. but we do have one or two other ways of getting information.
I mean, in the context of the t-shirt thing, just how credible can Arrington's screenshot claim be, anyway?
I'm sure it's a somewhat thin argument, but I personally would think they'd start reserving their over-committal in the wake of the Facebook-picture-fax thing. I mean, they bought that hook, line and sinker, and that was a hoax they at least SAW.
This is a far better critique of TechCrunch than the "quid pro quo" angle.