My two cents... The article said the interview was done awhile back, and at that time, the likely plan was for just a text article -- if it made it that far. Later, as this got more traction, the editors decided they'd run it (we now know it's run with more prominence -- first page on the web site) and they needed a visual photo to go with it. Nate was asked for one... and Nate provided one he liked...
Remember, in the biz, reporters typically aren't photographers, and vice versa.
{The above is related as my background, in the past, was with a major media outlet}
I know that if I had to give a photo, the ones I might choose were from events in the past - pictures of myself I really liked, as opposed to most I don't.
Sometimes things just are not conspiracy theories. Reading here and Y! about the photo is just nutz. I don't see how it relates whether it was current or older, or taken at the interview, or not.
P.S. The article, of course, is great. And it is interesting how the WSJ is referring to things in past tense as if things were a 'done deal'. Similar to how Rosen has portrayed the term sheets as a done thing (just with the remaining task of converting them to PORv7). I DO NOT think that's a coincidence.
.... Please, just call me Catz ;) - - - - - {and the requisite, all IMHO, do your own due diligence, and make your own investments}
AI
