Ugh. The absurdly misleading title totally ruined this article for me.

Usually when you put someone's name followed by quotes that means, ya know, they actually said something. Isn't that supposed to be journalism 101? Don't put quote marks around something unless, ya know, it was a direct quote? And not your personal interpretation of body language and tone?

I think newspapers usually use single quotes when paraphrasing someone (e.g., http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24856034/).

I doubt Arrington has taken Journalism 101.

I read single quotes as quoting someone too (and in my reading that's what the article you linked to is doing).

I'm pretty sure you don't "need" quotes to "paraphrase" someone, you could just write the characterization, in, you know, words.

Anyway, I agree: very weak, tabloid-esque title.

Agreed. I like Arrington's writing, and I do think this was an important story, but if I ever put a non-quote in quotation marks, and plopped it in a headline, my editor would tear me a new orifice.