I think this article nails it:
it’s interesting that at the root of Arrington’s curiously blind allegiance to Google are his own admissions of having close Google contacts and being afforded opportunities not yet available to the general public, which include private demos of the service…
I find it especially interesting that Apple made their FCC reply public. And they did so not by “leaking” it, or handing it over to a few outlets, but rather by openly placing it on their web site. Apple has plenty of lawyers, and one has to think they feel pretty good about their initial answers.
Meanwhile, Google publicly hid behind a big, fat “REDACTED”. Literally.
And yet, which company’s leg did Arrington choose to hump? Google. I wouldn’t care whose side he picked if he compared each company’s response side by side and gave reasons for his beliefs. However, since Google did not make their reply public he couldn’t do that. So instead he leaned on all his special treatment (read: sucking up) from Google. This does not (and should not) instill anyone with confidence about his article, which he states in the comments he chose to “slant” to his opinion.
Given that he has only one official side of the argument upon which to base it, at best Arrington is simply Apple-bashing for the attention it brings (there’s a lot of that going around). At worst he’s a Google lackey. In either case — and in between those extremes — there’s nothing that would indicate any impartiality, solid reporting, or lack of agenda on his part. It’s a rant. Nothing more, nothing less.