3 ms·

I'm honestly getting kind of annoyed with seeing stuff about Theranos, since everyone writing about them is beating about the bush, and only ends up describing

I'm honestly getting kind of annoyed with seeing stuff about Theranos, since everyone writing about them is beating about the bush, and only ends up describing how Theranos communicates with a startling lack of earnestness. Example from the video, paraphrased: Mod: "What prick tests are you able to do, using no commercially available lab equipment?" Holmes: "[lots of waffling] We're currently only doing the Herpes test. [proceeds to not answer the question]" Mod: [accepts the non-answer and moves on] This kind of reporting is entirely useless, unless it's some kind of attempt to subtly out Theranos for being dishonest.

oska 11y ago
A media interview is not a police room interrogation, nor a courtroom cross-examination. The interviewer (most probably) realises the question has not been properly answered but understands that they have to keep the interview moving. Also, if they go in too hard, it can have a backfiring effect of causing the audience to start sympathising with the person being interviewed (even though that person is clearly waffling and dissembling). The interview is still effective in that hard-headed people watching the interview who need concrete answers and actual information will still draw their own (likely negative) conclusions.
- Mithaldu 11y ago
  Yeah, i understand that interviewing follows specific rules, since it's a realtime setting. However, what i failed to make clear in my original post: The mentioned exchange is not addressed seriously in the article either.
trevyn 11y ago
Huh? Sounds like she did answer the question -- only Herpes.
- eropple 11y ago
  They're currently, as I understand it, doing the herpes test commercially (sometimes, apparently). The question was what they are able to do, not just in a commercial sense.
in_cahoots 11y ago
The media was caught off-guard after years of writing puff pieces, and it's only now that they are doing any investigative journalism. The only thing they have to go off of right now are hype-filled interviews, sources, and he-said / she-said conversations. I'm sure the major newspapers are all preparing full investigative pieces, but those take time. In the meantime we'll get articles full of circumstantial evidence and insinuations.
AJ007 11y ago
You are just used to confrontational rating grabbing interviews. The fact that someone does not answer a specific question is valuable, just not as entertaining. The more questions the interviewer can deliver, the better. She dug her own grave.

oska 11y ago

A media interview is not a police room interrogation, nor a courtroom cross-examination. The interviewer (most probably) realises the question has not been properly answered but understands that they have to keep the interview moving. Also, if they go in too hard, it can have a backfiring effect of causing the audience to start sympathising with the person being interviewed (even though that person is clearly waffling and dissembling). The interview is still effective in that hard-headed people watching the interview who need concrete answers and actual information will still draw their own (likely negative) conclusions.

Mithaldu 11y ago
Yeah, i understand that interviewing follows specific rules, since it's a realtime setting. However, what i failed to make clear in my original post: The mentioned exchange is not addressed seriously in the article either.

trevyn 11y ago

Huh? Sounds like she did answer the question -- only Herpes.

eropple 11y ago
They're currently, as I understand it, doing the herpes test commercially (sometimes, apparently). The question was what they are able to do, not just in a commercial sense.

in_cahoots 11y ago

The media was caught off-guard after years of writing puff pieces, and it's only now that they are doing any investigative journalism. The only thing they have to go off of right now are hype-filled interviews, sources, and he-said / she-said conversations. I'm sure the major newspapers are all preparing full investigative pieces, but those take time. In the meantime we'll get articles full of circumstantial evidence and insinuations.

AJ007 11y ago

You are just used to confrontational rating grabbing interviews. The fact that someone does not answer a specific question is valuable, just not as entertaining. The more questions the interviewer can deliver, the better. She dug her own grave.