I will admit that for a while 9to5Mac had some good sources in Apple. I mean, clearly the people at Apple feeding them a ton of info didn't value their jobs that much, and 9to5 seemed to have no qualms jeopardizing those jobs, but... the public loves that shit, don't they?
Still, the public loves semi-accurate information as well. At least, they'd prefer you finish reading a headline, paragraph and one-word summary before blowing up a post about how you have clearly been pointing to a "fact" for a long time, patting yourself on the back relentlessly and gloating over how "right" you were.
Except you weren't right. You blew the headline, your article, and your credibility out the window by getting the story backwards. Well done.
9to5Mac took Jim Dalrymple's "Yep" about NFC on iPhone and made it sound like he CONFIRMED the tech on the next iPhone. He actually "yep"d the article pointing out why it was highly unlikely.
Here are a few choice quotes, now removed from the site:
"We first found NFC code in hardware dumps from upcoming iPhone prototypes, so the likelihood of Apple including the hardware would seem high"
Yes, well don't let the facts get in the way of what you've been guessing all along, shall we?
"Today, Jim Darlympe says Yep to Anandtech’s new post on NFC"
Uh, except he didn't. I'm guessing they looked at the bottom of the post, saw "yep" and just ran with all their presupposed notions. You know, like any good reporter would do!
But the headline says it all: NFC on the new iPhone? 'Yep'
Now the headline says "No NFC on the new iPhone? 'Yep'
See what just a few seconds will get you? Stop trying to be first and just get the fucking facts right. It's often not that difficult.
one man's journey into creating gibblybits