Well, before the SOPA/PIPA frenzy of MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, Fox, and Bloomberg... I became a 'regular' tech correspondent on Bloomberg after moving to NY and appearing on a panel moderated by Margaret Brennan. She invited me to appear and they kept inviting me back (they liked the combo of 'good on air' and 'actually did it').
I know Brennan's a wahoo, the first time I saw you two on air together it almost seemed like you guys knew each other from college it was so...comfortable.
As I understand it, and from very limited experience: it is extremely difficult to speak that naturally and coherently on television. It seems plausible that having spoken compellingly once on CNN (when Reddit was at the center of the SOPA debate), CNN has now locked onto him as a viable tech commentator.
(I'm glad of that, in case that comment sounded dismissive.)
There's also a media "stamp of approval" effect going on: get cited as an authority once on X by a major publication (CNN, NYT, etc) and you go in everyone's Rolodex for it.
There is at least one reporter at a well-respected news organization who thinks that "Patrick appeared in the NYT and said 'Japan'" makes me an excellent source for coverage of Japanese politics. (Who is the prime minister right now?)
A difference, to me, is that they don't have as great a pool of people to choose from who are knowledgable about Japan, are connected (and speak English). I think is his case, they do have a good quality pool but feel comfortable with his subject matter knowledge and demeanor.
I am curious though, how did this (you becoming a go to commentator for tech) end up happening?