Landmark Theaters Employee Union

It is interesting how Cuban often says in print that he does not care what is said nor written about him, because this proves the opposite.
So because The New York Times questions his ideas (never misquoting him) he is trying to invalidate them by deflecting criticism with his meta-argument. No one would claim that the New York Times is perfect; it is clearly flawed. But blogs, like Cuban's, lack fact checkers--they are often not subject to any professional scutiny. The New York Times has dismissed those that did not meet journalistic ethics. They retract articles when other information comes to light proving original reporting incorrect.

I guess my question would be: if Cuban thought so little of The New York Time's reporting why did he agree to be interviewed? Did he think that it was going to be a fluff piece that would unquestioningly promote his enterprises? I suspect that is what he is used to and what he expected. It is quite a coup to be written about in such a prestigous newspaper. It must be very disappointing to questioned when you expect free advertising. But he has managed to turn this into self-promotion anyway. He kept himself in the news longer than he deserved to be.