The Red vs Arri lawsuit story they ran felt that way. It looked like it was cribbed off the Reuters report. It struck me like the author didn't actually read the papers filed in the lawsuit. The biggest issue was the lack of reporting on the accusation that Arri sabotaged a Red One on the set of a movie. The original report was written before court papers were available (I think), but the TechCrunch story was posted well after court papers were available. It just seems like they are getting sloppy nd not checking things.

I'm sure there's pressure to put out articles as fast as possible verses the old days of publishing where a journalist might have weeks to work on their piece. With publishing on the web so easy these days readers tend to expect higher publishing frequency, but I'm sure we can't be the only ones who would gladly trade quantity for quality.

I guess I would really like the writer of an article to actually read the only piece of source material. Yeah, I would love quality, but the current advertising metrics seem to work against quality in a big way.