This article is so strange. What could have been a great place for a piece about the service is now a whiny rant about getting beat to the punch by an embargo b

This article is so strange. What could have been a great place for a piece about the service is now a whiny rant about getting beat to the punch by an embargo breach, a leak; something that we deal with so often these days that there's enough evidence of graceful ways to handle it that this post shouldn't have had to have been made. Opposite to what others are saying, this doesn't highlight Lyft to me. It highlights that if this is what I can come to expect from TechCrunch writers, then I don't care to visit it or "launch" through them. I would be pretty livid if a blogger decided to use my launch to get on his high horse about how he was too busy at other events to notice the breach [1]. Regardless of his evening plans, the other article would have come out. Regardless of his evening plans, the other article would have said the exact same things as his did. So what does that boil down to, that being a TechCrunch writer means you've got more of a right to that information than anyone else? Does that mean TechCrunch merely cares about being the blog equivalent of FIRST! rather than truly informative? It's okay though, you got to slap an Exclusive on that linkbait title. [1] Question: When I wrote for a tech/gaming blog, it was mandatory that we constantly made sure we looked at what other stories people had on the docket so that we didn't overlap them and so that if we found out any new information, we would alert them to it so they could add it before it was published. If the staff at TC loved this company so much and were so stoked to write on it, how did it take 12 hours on a 24 news cycle for someone to become aware of this breach? Could understand how that might happen on a smaller site, but surely a company like TC, that apparently needs these firsts to be relevant, should keep pretty constant tabs on the industry.