Silly? Maybe, but I don't think it's undeserved. The vast majority of "journalism" about Apple is just noisy sensationalism. The three bloggers that the OA cites (Gruber, Dediu and Dalrymple) may be biased partisans to more or less degrees, but at least they make a reasonable effort to be backed by the facts before they open their mouths. It's not Apple's job to shape their PR such that reporters do their job right—that's on the reporters for grasping to any unfounded rumor that makes a dramatic headline.
What's strange, given the intensity of the last two sentences: "So much of what is written about Apple these days is just horseshit meant to draw flies. And it makes me sad that somebody had to clean up after that particular pile." is that the people he picks out specifically as being the cream of the crop, happily pass on exactly those kind of articles if written about Apple's "enemies".
Google closing Android after Honeycomb? White-label Chinese Android a threat? Samsung forking Android? They simply don't care if those things are true or not, their audience wants to hear that Google/Android is failing/going to fail/is only for poor people etc.
Their hypocritical annoyance at others doing exactly the same thing is one of their worst features.
I'm not sure I see the hypocrisy. Dalrymple and Gruber in particular are very opinionated and know what they like. They prefer Apple to the point that if Android were better they would be the last to know because their worldview is already formed.
However, passing on a link that matches their worldview but may have factual inaccuracies is not the same as writing something that is complete bullshit. In other words, it's not their job to fact check other people's writing. Maybe they would be better journalists if they did, but if some factual inaccuracies slip into some of their links it's not the same as writing them up themselves.
Now it may be a question of degree; if they are posting blatantly false rumors about Android on a regular basis, that would be news to me and maybe I'd get in line with you. My impression is that they are pretty good factually (selectivity is not the same as factual correctness). But I don't read either of them precisely because I find their cheerleading tiresome and I'd rather read something that offers me personally a new perspective, so maybe they've slid down the slippery slope and I just haven't noticed.
