What strikes me as worrisome is that, at least by the tone of the article, there is no possible doubt in Arrington's mind that the screenshot exists, and that it is EXACTLY what was claimed to him, and he hasn't even seen it.
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.
What strikes me as worrisome is that, at least by the tone of the article, there is no possible doubt in Arrington's mind that the screenshot exists, and that it is EXACTLY what was claimed to him, and he hasn't even seen it.
This is a far better critique of TechCrunch than the "quid pro quo" angle.
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.