7 ms·

It's sickening to see how these people are portrayed as "destined to do great things" all over the media. Everyone who is writing fluff about such people shoul

It's sickening to see how these people are portrayed as "destined to do great things" all over the media. Everyone who is writing fluff about such people should be documented and further publications from these sources should be taken with a grain of salt.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> sickening how these people are portrayed as "destined to do great things" all over the media I'm critical of the non-financial press presenting FTX as anything but a fraud. But this piece is far from flattering. Ellison was exceptional. She was then ruined by crypto. This is run of the mill for human interest pieces.
- numbers_guy 4y ago
  That is exactly the problem with the narrative. It is portraying her as the victim. As if she wasn't one of the chief architects of it all.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > portraying her as the victim Could you cite where? I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm simply not seeing it. The article readily admits "Ellison told Alameda employees in a video call that she knew FTX sent customer funds to Alameda, and that her company used the money to cover its liabilities." She is called out as Alameda's "sole leader." And it ends with a "quip Ellison made" about crypto being "mostly scams and memes when you get down to it." Sure, Ellison is portrayed sympathetically at the start. But the conclusion is damning. And nowhere do I see her cast as a victim. We don't need to embargo empathy the moment someone commits a crime.
    - SilasX 4y ago
      You just repeated the framing yourself! “She was then ruined by crypto” — as if she’s some innocent victim. You’re just mystified at how it portrays her sympathetically, even as you buy the narrative hook, line, and sinker!
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > “She was then ruined by crypto” — as if she’s some innocent victim I suppose we're reading nuance differently. Madoff was an accomplished financier and chair of the NYSE. His reputation was ruined by the Ponzi scheme. Sure, it's a passive voice. But that's far from exonerating. Similar to how someone can ask why a murderer wound up murdering, identifying elements from their childhood, et cetera, that explain and maybe even make them sympathetic, all without exonerating them. (In that case, I would argue there is valid victimhood in the perpetrator's story. That doesn't make them less guilty. And I haven't seen any claims of victimhood in Ellison's case, as we did in e.g. Holmes's.)
        SilasX 4y ago
        >Sure, it's a passive voice. But that's far from exonerating. The accumulation of all those “not exonerating but friendly” pieces is what makes it a positive framing. Something can be technically true but selected and framed to favor a false narrative. This is Journalism 101, or even high school English class, and you may have forgotten an important lesson from it.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > accumulation of all those “not exonerating but friendly” pieces is what makes it a positive framing This is not a friendly piece. There is nothing exonerating in it. And after some flattery it concedes her guilt. The meta-story appears to be people trying to blame the media for another fraud in crypto.
        SilasX 4y ago
        Hold on -- I didn't blame the media for this fraud. Did you just accept my point that a wording can suggest a narrative even without explicitly endorsing it? You're almost there! Now look back at the title: "Ellison was bound for success. Then she got into crypto" and realize it's wrapped in an exonerating tone. The title endorses a narrative. Yes, some sentences walk it back a little, but the bell was clearly rung. Again, the whole issue of framing is that you can do a lot via emphasis: put the damning stuff in footnotes and puff in the headlines.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> sickening how these people are portrayed as "destined to do great things" all over the media I'm critical of the non-financial press presenting FTX as anything but a fraud. But this piece is far from flattering. Ellison was exceptional. She was then ruined by crypto. This is run of the mill for human interest pieces.

numbers_guy 4y ago
That is exactly the problem with the narrative. It is portraying her as the victim. As if she wasn't one of the chief architects of it all.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > portraying her as the victim Could you cite where? I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm simply not seeing it. The article readily admits "Ellison told Alameda employees in a video call that she knew FTX sent customer funds to Alameda, and that her company used the money to cover its liabilities." She is called out as Alameda's "sole leader." And it ends with a "quip Ellison made" about crypto being "mostly scams and memes when you get down to it." Sure, Ellison is portrayed sympathetically at the start. But the conclusion is damning. And nowhere do I see her cast as a victim. We don't need to embargo empathy the moment someone commits a crime.
  - SilasX 4y ago
    You just repeated the framing yourself! “She was then ruined by crypto” — as if she’s some innocent victim. You’re just mystified at how it portrays her sympathetically, even as you buy the narrative hook, line, and sinker!
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > “She was then ruined by crypto” — as if she’s some innocent victim I suppose we're reading nuance differently. Madoff was an accomplished financier and chair of the NYSE. His reputation was ruined by the Ponzi scheme. Sure, it's a passive voice. But that's far from exonerating. Similar to how someone can ask why a murderer wound up murdering, identifying elements from their childhood, et cetera, that explain and maybe even make them sympathetic, all without exonerating them. (In that case, I would argue there is valid victimhood in the perpetrator's story. That doesn't make them less guilty. And I haven't seen any claims of victimhood in Ellison's case, as we did in e.g. Holmes's.)
      - SilasX 4y ago
        >Sure, it's a passive voice. But that's far from exonerating. The accumulation of all those “not exonerating but friendly” pieces is what makes it a positive framing. Something can be technically true but selected and framed to favor a false narrative. This is Journalism 101, or even high school English class, and you may have forgotten an important lesson from it.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > accumulation of all those “not exonerating but friendly” pieces is what makes it a positive framing This is not a friendly piece. There is nothing exonerating in it. And after some flattery it concedes her guilt. The meta-story appears to be people trying to blame the media for another fraud in crypto.
        SilasX 4y ago
        Hold on -- I didn't blame the media for this fraud. Did you just accept my point that a wording can suggest a narrative even without explicitly endorsing it? You're almost there! Now look back at the title: "Ellison was bound for success. Then she got into crypto" and realize it's wrapped in an exonerating tone. The title endorses a narrative. Yes, some sentences walk it back a little, but the bell was clearly rung. Again, the whole issue of framing is that you can do a lot via emphasis: put the damning stuff in footnotes and puff in the headlines.