Blogger and witness are two entirely different roles.
Witness: I can to the lunch uninvited, people squirmed, a couple of the participants later told me they were uncomfortable with the tenor of the discussions. (From a witness perspective, first-hand facts based on personal knowledge are everything - anything beyond this is hearsay and not to be credited).
Blogger: These are the top angel investors in the Valley; I heard second-hand from a couple of the participants that they are upset about valuations, are looking for ways to cooperate to bring them down, and are also looking for ways to cooperate to freeze out VCs as co-investors and to limit the impact of rogue operations like Y Combinator; I checked with my lawyers (and am myself a lawyer) and I can tell you that this stuff, if true, is blatantly illegal and I speculate that this is why everyone was squirming.
This latter stuff is the blogger, not the witness, drawing inferences, putting glosses on the limited known facts, speculating, etc. with an overriding goal of making a story significant, newsworthy, and even sensational. This is a legitimate role of a blogger, and is a big part of what makes TC and Mr. Arrington himself sometimes insightful, sometimes arrogant, sometimes maddenlingly infuriating, but almost always interesting to a general readership that takes an intense interest in the subjects being covered.
One can "trust" the witness aspects without necessarily giving credence to the blogger glosses that are put on the facts. Mr. Arrington appears to be a straight arrow when recounting facts but watch out for those glosses: they might easily have an agenda behind them as to which the simple facts themselves are secondary (this doesn't mean they can't be true, only that they need to be considered cautiously in light of possible underlying motives).
Witness: I can to the lunch uninvited, people squirmed, a couple of the participants later told me they were uncomfortable with the tenor of the discussions. (From a witness perspective, first-hand facts based on personal knowledge are everything - anything beyond this is hearsay and not to be credited).
Blogger: These are the top angel investors in the Valley; I heard second-hand from a couple of the participants that they are upset about valuations, are looking for ways to cooperate to bring them down, and are also looking for ways to cooperate to freeze out VCs as co-investors and to limit the impact of rogue operations like Y Combinator; I checked with my lawyers (and am myself a lawyer) and I can tell you that this stuff, if true, is blatantly illegal and I speculate that this is why everyone was squirming.
This latter stuff is the blogger, not the witness, drawing inferences, putting glosses on the limited known facts, speculating, etc. with an overriding goal of making a story significant, newsworthy, and even sensational. This is a legitimate role of a blogger, and is a big part of what makes TC and Mr. Arrington himself sometimes insightful, sometimes arrogant, sometimes maddenlingly infuriating, but almost always interesting to a general readership that takes an intense interest in the subjects being covered.
One can "trust" the witness aspects without necessarily giving credence to the blogger glosses that are put on the facts. Mr. Arrington appears to be a straight arrow when recounting facts but watch out for those glosses: they might easily have an agenda behind them as to which the simple facts themselves are secondary (this doesn't mean they can't be true, only that they need to be considered cautiously in light of possible underlying motives).