Last Year’s Apple Rumours Were Somewhat Bogus ⇥ techland.time.com

Of the rumours that 9to5Mac reported last year, the ones which were wholly original content were nearly entirely accurate. However, they continued to report third-party rumours alongside their own scoops, and these were largely inaccurate.

Here’s what I don’t understand: with their incredibly accurate original reporting, why does 9to5Mac feel compelled to share things they cannot verify, risking their cachet as a result? I suppose that’s a somewhat unfair question: they probably report unverified third-party rumours because otherwise they might not have anything to post on a given day. But does the increase in page views from these posts offset the discomfort Mark Gurman and Seth Weintraub must feel allowing this mediocre content to parasitically feed off their cracking original reporting, and the damaged reputation Weintraub’s site suffers as a result?

Update: An earlier version of this implied that Mark Gurman owns 9to5Mac. This has been corrected and clarified.