Interesting differences in reporting between the two articles. 1) Rad is given more credit in the first with development of Tinder than in the second article where Munoz is now mentioned. 2) Wolfe isn't mentioned at all in the first: Mateen is credited with the idea of seeding the app at sororities and fraternities.
> That bothered me, but I didn’t have the space to tell the whole story in the magazine.
It seems like the reporter was aware that something was off, but only discovered the new details through Munoz (who might not be entirely objective as a source either?).
I can't tell whether it was shoddy journalism or just something that, at the point of the first article, wasn't too relevant.
Either way it reminds me once again of how factually incorrect many articles I read might actually be.
