If you say something, does it automatically make it so? Clearly, that's what TechCrunch's Michael Arrington thinks. Today, he proclaimed that "The Google Phone Is Very Real. And It's Coming Soon." The story outlines what TechCrunch has "absolutely confirmed" and then knits together a series of assumptions and possible clues into what appears to be a quilt of unattributed fabrication.

Arrington, who is not a journalist (and has never professed to be one), regularly talks to financial guys, with close ties to virtually every major technology company. He's also plugged into these same companies at even higher levels. Oh, and he also invests in companies he writes about. At times, this can make his information incredibly prescient and also highly self-serving. The problem is, no one can tell the difference.

If Arrington is a Google investor or stock holder, then this kind of story could be a boon for his holdings. If he's an investor in LG (which he thinks will build the Google phone) and not Samsung (which he thinks won't), then saying so could help boost LG stock and, in turn, his own holdings. (No, I don't know if he has stock with either company, but as he states at the end of this long article that defends his impartiality, he started investing again somewhere in the last few years.)

I'm sure there are those that will consider my rant sour grapes. They'll say that Arrington is a brilliant guy who knows things that I don't and I'm just frustrated. Maybe there's some truth to this. Really, though, I'm angrier about the fact that Michael Arrington can write a story with guesses and possible inside information and get away with it. If I read the story right, he didn't even bother to call Google, LG, or Samsung for confirmation or even to have them say "no comment." At least then we'd know he was trying.

Arrington, of course, doesn't have to try. He is our industry's favorite enfant terrible. He can say and do virtually anything he wants. If he wants to abolish embargoes between companies and journalists, he'll simply say and do so. If he wants to write based on rumor and not call it that, he can do it. If he wants to make logical and illogical leaps in his articles, he can do that, too. The point is there are no rules for Arrington.

I have no illusions that any of this is going to change any time soon. Arrington's TechCrunch Web site network is going strong. He has some great beat bloggers who break hot stories hours, if not days, before anyone else. That's why his site is so popular. But readers need to understand that Arrington's motives for any of his content are murky at best. I don't think he's about delivering the best and most reliable information to his audience. He wants to be big, he wants to be important, and he wants people to visit TechCrunch and read its feeds. He wants companies paying fealty to him and the aura he exudes. And he gets all of these things even when he gets it completely wrong.

With the Google phone, I truly believe he's simply trying to make something so. Our phone expert Sascha Segan doesn't believe the Google Phone rumor and agrees with me that Arrington usually has less-than-altruistic motives for anything he writes.

The irony here is that Michael Arrington is also trying to play the other side of the fence. He's been working on the CrunchPad tablet since 2008, but he has yet to deliver anything more than vapor. It's good vapor, though. The non-existent product has even managed to win an award. No one knows whether the product will arrive this week, next week, next month, next year, or ever.

Arrington doesn't talk to anybody about it, except his trusted minions, and he'll hand deliver whatever he does make to his bestest friends only. He's gotten a pass, mostly, for this failure to launch, but as Arrington continues to try and dream into reality all sorts of tech nonsense, I wonder how long he can count on that.