5 ms·
We’re offering a free TechCrunch tshirt to any Google employee that forwards that screenshot to us. No questions asked. Anyone left on HN who still wants to st
by dfranke 17y ago
We’re offering a free TechCrunch tshirt to any Google employee that forwards that screenshot to us. No questions asked.
Anyone left on HN who still wants to stand up for Arrington's reputation as a journalist?
- logic 17y agoI expected the TechCrunch readership to not get a little jab of humor, but here too?
- dfranke 17y agoIt isn't funny. Arrington seems to think it is, but apparently all he's laughing at is his own lack of ethics rather than at any intended jest: i mean, sure, we’d take the docs and deliver the tshirt. but we do have one or two other ways of getting information.
- mullr 17y agoI find that a little funny. By wearing the free t-shirt, wouldn't everybody know what it's you that leaked said screenshot? Unless everybody at google regularly wears techcrunch clothing, which probably isn't likely. He should probably offer something which doesn't implicitly identify his source.
- ksvs 17y agoThere are few reporters who wouldn't accept leaked documents. Some of the most famous news stories were based on leaks.
- dfranke 17y agoThere are hopefully considerably fewer offering explicit quid pro quos for said documents.
- mikedouglas 17y agoPutting aside that we're talking about a shirt, what is unethical about buying leaked information, as long as it is legitimate news?
- dfranke 17y agoIt's not legitimate news. It's confidential correspondence. Arrington is seeking to bribe a Google employee to betray his employer by breaching his NDA. If the document were evidence of wrongdoing on Google's part, it would be a different matter -- the employee would be a whistleblower and his betrayal would be laudable. But that's not what we're talking about. Google is the victim of the alleged wrongdoing. If the information gets leaked, they're victimized even further by being deprived of a bargaining chip with Apple.
- mikedouglas 17y agoIt's not legitimate news. 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.
- erlanger 17y agoI don't see a problem with this.
- tlrobinson 17y agoThe only problem I see is it will be trivial to find the culprit, just look for the Googler wearing a TC shirt.
- euccastro 17y agoHe'd wear it inside out.
- anonjon 17y ago"I posted Google's last bargaining chip on Tech Crunch and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt." At least do what the other mediocre tabloids do and expect to pay a bounty for Bat Boy pictures.
- idm 17y agoI'm in the "t-shirt was a joke" camp, but this does cause me to wonder: is this alleged screenshot also a joke? I mean, in the context of the t-shirt thing, just how credible can Arrington's screenshot claim be, anyway?
- bmelton 17y agoWhat 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.
- mikedouglas 17y agoWhat 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.
- dfranke 17y agoYes, it is indeed a better critique. That should have occurred to me.
- pjvandehaar 17y agoThis is disproved by the fact that at least 10 perfectly photoshopped screenshots had to have been submitted in the first hour, and have not been posted.
- jkincaid 17y agoIt's a joke. Up to you whether you think it's funny or not, but as grounds to question his credibility? Lighten up.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- zaidf 17y agoI once passed on a story to TC that had one upvote on HN at the time. It went on to become a huge sensation online and in print worldwide. I won't disclose it but basically the company threatened to sue all involved in spreading it. Afraid, I wrote to Arrington and he assured me he'd rather goto jail than out a source. 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.
- Nwallins 17y ago> I once passed on a story to TC that had one upvote on HN The meaning of this is completely changed if you parse it like: I once passed on a story...
- josefresco 17y agoAnyone HN left with a sense of humor? dranke apparently lost his.