8 ms·

Media coverage is a reflection, not a conspiracy. SBF pitched himself as virtuous, so the coverage reflected that. Jesse Powell and Brian Armstrong went the opp

Media coverage is a reflection, not a conspiracy. SBF pitched himself as virtuous, so the coverage reflected that. Jesse Powell and Brian Armstrong went the opposite direction (to varying degrees) so of course the coverage of them will focus on the contrarian aspects of their approach. We can, and should, hold the media to a high standard but not all journalism is equal: not all journalism is investigative journalism. Media is mostly just whatever people want to hear. Look at the coverage of Theranos pre-reveal, it was fawning because it was what people wanted to hear.

setr 4y ago
Is that what people wanted to hear, or what the subjects wanted said? I don’t think I know anyone who was particularly interested in hearing of theranos being fawned over, though I doubt anyone really minded it (insofar as they don’t mind all the other fawning).
- phphphphp 4y ago
  There’s a symbiosis. Elizabeth Holmes was a fantastic story for the time, a self-made billionaire changing the world through healthcare innovations, she was on the front cover of magazines because it was a story people absolutely wanted to hear. Likewise with SBF, he’s this multi-billionaire crypto guy who lives like he’s poor! He wants to do good! He’s deep into effective altruism! That’s interesting to a lot of people. The uncritical platforming of these stories is definitely worth criticism, but I don’t believe there to be a grand conspiracy required for SBF to get a bunch of fawning coverage. (Specifically picking on the New York Times: they frequently publish puff pieces about all sorts of things, they have a long running column about wealthy people’s weddings. Taking a story that people will find interesting (billionaire drives a Corolla) and telling it with a big leading photo is just what a lot of journalism is. If you read every article in the NYT, the SBF piece is totally believable as par for the course without any motive beyond “it’s a story people will like reading”).

setr 4y ago

Is that what people wanted to hear, or what the subjects wanted said? I don’t think I know anyone who was particularly interested in hearing of theranos being fawned over, though I doubt anyone really minded it (insofar as they don’t mind all the other fawning).

phphphphp 4y ago
There’s a symbiosis. Elizabeth Holmes was a fantastic story for the time, a self-made billionaire changing the world through healthcare innovations, she was on the front cover of magazines because it was a story people absolutely wanted to hear. Likewise with SBF, he’s this multi-billionaire crypto guy who lives like he’s poor! He wants to do good! He’s deep into effective altruism! That’s interesting to a lot of people. The uncritical platforming of these stories is definitely worth criticism, but I don’t believe there to be a grand conspiracy required for SBF to get a bunch of fawning coverage. (Specifically picking on the New York Times: they frequently publish puff pieces about all sorts of things, they have a long running column about wealthy people’s weddings. Taking a story that people will find interesting (billionaire drives a Corolla) and telling it with a big leading photo is just what a lot of journalism is. If you read every article in the NYT, the SBF piece is totally believable as par for the course without any motive beyond “it’s a story people will like reading”).