You're jumping to conclusions. It's possible the details are accurate (or at least come from the horse's mouth). You don't know what the reporters got from int

You're jumping to conclusions. It's possible the details are accurate (or at least come from the horse's mouth). You don't know what the reporters got from interviews or when. He may well have been interviewed earlier, or advised by his attorney that cooperating with a piece that would portray his earlier actions in a positive light couldn't hurt him. I don't know how high WIRED's standards of fact-checking are. Customarily, they'd need two independent sources for any statement of fact. (I believe the New Yorker, at least, cleaves to this standard.) I suspect this presages a book on the subject.