TechCrunch fired one of its employees, 17-year-old Daniel Brusilovsky, earlier this month for accepting a MacBook Air from a company in exchange for a blog post. (We incorrectly referred to him, as too did TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington in his post, as an intern. Brusilovsky says he wasn’t.)
We called for TechCrunch to come clean on which company paid for press. Now, Loren Feldman of 1938 Media joins us in the hunt. His method is rather clever. Continue reading
The New York Times is running a story about how most new books on Apple’s iPad may not average between $12.99 to $14.99 — that’s the price ceiling. This entire speculation about the Most Secretive Computer Company Ever is pegged to “at least three people with knowledge of the discussions.”
This phrase always kinda baffled us: “at least three people.” Aren’t they your sources, Motoko Rich? Like, don’t you know how many people told you that? Were you drunk? Unable to count to four?
The Gray Lady is on watch. We better see some cheap e-books next month, Mr. Rich.
Picture: Myuibe
Props to the Wall Street Journal on calling Google Buzz (not by name).
A day before Google called its press minions to a quiet back alley in Mountain View, the WSJ published a story called “Gmail, too, seeks to rival Facebook.” Citing “people familiar with the matter,” WSJ described a new feature in Google’s mail client that “makes it easier for users of Gmail to view media and status updates shared online by their friends.”
Sure enough, Google announced and fired off its social networking feature, Google Buzz. Cred point goes to Rupert Murdoch‘s newest bastard child.
We haven’t posted in a week. I guess that means the blogosphere is done with stupid rumors, anonymous sources and inane claims. Job well done, guys! Let’s all go home.
Yeah, ok.
Time to sift through the bullshit we missed last week.
Target numero uno: “Google Paying Apple More Than $100 Million Annually For iPhone Search Deal.” Continue reading
The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart took an unlikely shot at blogs last week. Exaggerated headlines really are a problem. It misleads the people who treat news like window shopping. Gloss over some of these headlines, and you’d think everybody hates everybody else, and the world is ending at 6 o’clock.
While misdirection through exaggeration is one problem, misdirection through rumors and half-truths is just as frightening — if not more so. Keep fighting the sensationalists, Stewart, and we’ll keep prodding the rumor mongers.
Picture: Belltown Messenger
Posted in Recortes
Google did indeed have a commercial in the Super Bowl. TechCrunch guessed there would be one based on a fairly vague tweet from Google CEO Eric Schmidt., as we noted in our post about the Google Super Bowl commercial. Continue reading
Maybe we should just call this the Is TechCrunch Full of Shit Blog.
In a characteristic jumping to conclusions, MG Siegler somehow lands on the assumption that Google will have a Super Bowl commercial maybe about the Nexus One. Continue reading
It’s weekend bullshit edition. While most Americans lounge around, recover from hangovers and make last-minute Super Bowl plans, the gadget bloggers are mixing away on a new batch of chocolate chip hearsay.
First, some site called PPC Geeks sprays this insanely detailed load about a new phone from Microsoft running an updated operating system called Windows Phone 7. Blogger MightyMike (I’m not even making that up; go look) lists a bunch of the device’s features that have supposedly leaked in advance of an unveiling at the Mobile World Congress in a couple weeks. Continue reading
Less than 24 hours after Michael Arrington‘s TechCrunch had to come clean on laptop bribery to protect his blog’s journalistic integrity, the founder drops a sourceless prediction about the world’s largest social network.
Facebook is planning to launch a “fully featured webmail product” to replace that crappy inbox feature we only use out of pure necessity, Arrington writes. He attributes that eye-catching headline to “a source with knowledge of the product.” Continue reading
We’re just throwing this out there.
Under AP’s rules, material from anonymous sources may be used only if:
1. The material is information and not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the news report.
2. The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source.
3. The source is reliable, and in a position to have accurate information.
Posted in Recortes
