DISQUS

Jeremy · 2 years ago

Mathew,

You are one of my favorite writers, but I am going to call you out on your headline. Your headline is written as if it were a fact, yet the only data point to substantiate it is the following quote:

"This raises a very important question - why didn't Microsoft match Google's $3.1 billion offer. Smith would not comment on this, but I can report from very good sources that in fact the company did offer to match it, and was willing to pay even more to insure that Google did not corner the online ad market. But for whatever reasons, the private equity firm that owned the majority of DoubleClick's shares decided to go with Google."

That's not confirmation by any means, and I'd encourage you to change your headline to imply that it is still a rumor/unknown.

We have enough silicon valley-ites creating rumors out of these types of topics that I’d like to think my fellow Canadians still keep their heads in the clear! J

Best,

Jeremy

Mathew · 2 years ago

Thanks for the comment, Jeremy -- and I take your point in the spirit in which you offered it.

At the same time, though, I did qualify the headline by saying this is John Batelle's version of events (although I do think he is a fairly credible source, as those things go).

If you were to accuse me of using a salacious headline in order to try and draw readers, I suppose I would have to plead guilty -- with an explanation :-)