Sometimes, an industry analyst gets a story so very, very wrong that they try to completely airbrush history. Members of the MSM like to accuse bloggers of this, but I just found a whopper example from Tom Yager of InfoWorld. On June 6th, before the Apple conference, he wrote about the (then rumored) Apple/intel thing. I can't link to the story because it's just gone - instead, I took a photo of it:

Now, it's hard to make out in there, but you can click for a bigger image. Compare that with the posted commentary from Yager on June 6 (note the "updated 9 June" snippet on the left). Here's a piece from the dead tree version:

Might Apple sell an x86? I doubt it. Might Apple shrink-wrap OS X for PC Systems? Who cares?

...

I'll tell you my pet scenario: IBM leaked the details of the top secret PowerPC 970MP processor to needle Apple into committing to a volume purchase. Apple doesn't like to be jerked around, so it had a sit-down with Intel over cucumber sandwiches and chortled, "You must promise not to tell anybody about this"

Compare that to what's posted at that link - some crow eating, but not a lot, and the print column is straight down the memory hole. The point isn't that Yager got this wrong - heck, go Google intel and Apple and see how many other people got this stuff wrong. Heck, look here, on my blog, and see where I fantasized about Apple "thinking different" and using the iTanic. Yager wants to airbrush history though: "Me? Predict that Apple would never, ever go to intel just days before it happened? Never, I never said such a thing! Why, try finding it in Google!".

So much for all those editors and fact checkers that keep "professional" writers honest - as opposed to the bloggers, who can just re-edit history. Yeah, right...