One needs to apply the Arrington filter, which is a little complex.
For example: I immediately thought the Facebook phone story was link bait (and I still do). However, it seems there was more truth in it that I would've credited (based on a subsequent interview with Zuckerberg). Such stories drive page views but they bring Arrington's credibility into question, leading to debates like this ("do we believe him?").
With this story, the fact that the meeting happened I think is undisputed. Rather than more typically quoting an "anonymous source" he staked his personal reputation and used his own eyewitness account. So I don't doubt that part at all.
After that, it gets murky. Arrington's claims of collusion and price-fixing are probably a stretch based on the evidence but it has touched off McClure, Wilson and others. So there is something there. In the very least both sides (entrepreneurs and angels) are sensitive to the issue.
I also don't believe this is a binary problem: one of McClure and Arrington is right and the other is wrong. They can both be right, both be wrong or, more likely, both be somewhat right and somewhat wrong.
For one thing, people can believe they've done nothing wrong when they really have (note: I'm not claiming the super-angels have done anything wrong).
This is somewhat reminiscent of the DoJ investigation into anti-poaching agreements: both that and the angel collusion allegations seem motivated from cooperation but that doesn't mean they did nothing wrong.
TL:DR Arrington's observations are believable. His conclusions are premature.
Let me put it this way: if this story came from the Washington Post, New York Times or Wall Street Journal it would a) be more measured and b) have a higher standard for making what is a serious accusation.
I am the opposite. I believe blogs more than either of those sites - especially with important issues such as the war (they have each royally screwed up at least once with covering something as important as the war) .
For example: I immediately thought the Facebook phone story was link bait (and I still do). However, it seems there was more truth in it that I would've credited (based on a subsequent interview with Zuckerberg). Such stories drive page views but they bring Arrington's credibility into question, leading to debates like this ("do we believe him?").
With this story, the fact that the meeting happened I think is undisputed. Rather than more typically quoting an "anonymous source" he staked his personal reputation and used his own eyewitness account. So I don't doubt that part at all.
After that, it gets murky. Arrington's claims of collusion and price-fixing are probably a stretch based on the evidence but it has touched off McClure, Wilson and others. So there is something there. In the very least both sides (entrepreneurs and angels) are sensitive to the issue.
I also don't believe this is a binary problem: one of McClure and Arrington is right and the other is wrong. They can both be right, both be wrong or, more likely, both be somewhat right and somewhat wrong.
For one thing, people can believe they've done nothing wrong when they really have (note: I'm not claiming the super-angels have done anything wrong).
This is somewhat reminiscent of the DoJ investigation into anti-poaching agreements: both that and the angel collusion allegations seem motivated from cooperation but that doesn't mean they did nothing wrong.
TL:DR Arrington's observations are believable. His conclusions are premature.