21 ms·

The Secret Culprit in the Theranos Mess Is the Tech Press

153 points by forgotmyoldpw 10y ago

spaceflunky 10y ago
The media is 100% to blame here... I think in large part because of how they treat female entrepreneurs, with well-meaning, but harmful attitudes. IMO we live in a world where there are too few successful female entrepreneurs and at the same time people are very eager to see that world change. So as a result, if there is any inkling of a successful female entrepreneur, that story gets gobbled up by the press ad nauseam. A couple of problems created by this that stick out in my mind are: there's a lot unfair pressure for said female entrepreneur to succeed. And a lot of female entrepreneurs who would otherwise be ignored, suddenly find themselves as celebrity icons despite having any real success deserving of such praise, which creates a disastrous over confidence and the "personality" being placed before the business. Elizabeth Holes isn't the only one. Marissa Mayer was hailed a hero before crashing and burning. Less know is Sophia Amoruso, who despite only have a moderately popular online clothing shop (Nasty Gal), has written two books about her success and has an upcoming Netflix series about how "awesome" she is. And the press complete ignores the fact that Amoruso's company has gone through multiple lay-off rounds, has atrocious Glassdoor reviews, a declining relevancy, is being sued for firing pregnant women, and by all accounts is struggling to stay in business. All of this is true about Amoruso, but she still gets a Netflix series about how "wildly successful" she is...
- dosgonlogs 10y ago
  100%? So Elizabeth Holmes is blameless now? These CEO's and the press engage in what they believe to be a mutually beneficial endeavor. I think we can split the blame.
  - Archio 10y ago
    I'm not the parent commenter. However, I think he/she might mean that the media is 100% culpable, not necessarily that the media is to blame for 100% of the problem.
    - dosgonlogs 10y ago
      Good chance you are right about that.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jamesash 10y ago
  Surprised by the downvotes. Promoting Holmes as the next Jobs gave the tech press a chance to show how it was trumpeting diversity and gender balance in its coverage of founders. To those that downvoted - would you completely disagree that this played a role here?
  - MBCook 10y ago
    > The media is 100% to blame implies that nothing happened here but the media overhyped someone. While clearly true, and I have no doubt having a young female entrepreneur was a good angle, that's not the story. If anyone promised what Theranos promised it would be a big story. Could have been a 73 year old Doctor. No big needle draws? Tons of tests right at the doctors office? No more slow giant labs? A big breakthrough like that is NEWS. Having a female founder was just one more bullet on the 'cool story' checklist. The hype would have been there without the female founder angle the OP focused on. Saying the media is 100% to blame also absolves Theranos, its board, and its founder. Even when being overhyped they shouldn't have lied. They shouldn't have hidden things. They could have acted MUCH better. They could have not sold their services while knowing they didn't work. Absolute best case: they were wrong about how good their machines. But due to hype they kept trying and thought 'we can fix this before were caught'. And it just snowballed and snowballed. I'll also point out the end of the comment tends to imply that women run companies into the ground or aren't qualified to succeed since all anecdotes are of failures. For my anecdote: I've heard companies tend to elect women to be CEOs when there is basically nothing left to lose and saving the company is nearly impossible. Because by that point they figure it doesn't matter they don't have the 'best', some other proven CEO that happens to usually be a guy.
    - jamesash 10y ago
      Thank you for explaining your point of view. Helpful.
- redsummer 10y ago
  The culture is 'to blame' if anything. The butt-kicking female entrepreneur / superhero is a standard trope now in Hollywood and TV. Being a young women, especially a blonde one, is catnip in "celebrity business". It's 'empowering'. It sells papers. It's also bullshit, but to think such a thing is a thought crime. The funniest thing is all these 90 year old crinkly men being conned into investing. What could they possibly know about hi tech products ... they barely remember how to go to the toilet, or if they are even alive. It reminds me of old Cold War diplomats rapidly losing their mental faculties after a couple of smiles from an Eastern Bloc Anastasia. A pretty woman in a room of powerful men can rapidly turn them into fools.
  - aussieindian 10y ago
    Another instructive story comes from down under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_Gibson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_Gibson She was paraded as a brave and celebrated App developer who overcame serious health issues by the Australian press. and then it came crashing down.
- MBCook 10y ago
  > Marissa Mayer was hailed a hero before crashing and burning Did she? Or was she handed the reins to the Titanic and then vilified when it still sank? Could anyone have saved Yahoo? Would they have taken that job?
  - spaceflunky 10y ago
    Marissa Mayer the executive definitely crashed a burned. She created no value for Yahoo. There isn't even one Yahoo success during her entire tenure that she is responsible. Marissa Mayer spent $2.3billion dollar on completely worthless startups. Marissa Mayer got lucky at Google and will never get lucky again. She will never do anything important in tech again. Could anyone save Yahoo? I don't know, but there are certainly people that could have done a better job than Marissa Mayer.
draw_down 10y ago
Non-tech press outlet: "Uhh, it wasn't us, it was them."
- taylorbuley 10y ago
  This is Nick Bilton, occasionally of the NYTimes. Definitely an insider, even if not preaching from the usual pulpit. He's legit and worth reading.
  - joshdickson 10y ago
    Formerly of the NYTimes, he's now full time at Vanity Fair. This is the guy who wrote the book (literally) on Twitter. Quite legit.
- ShitlordVader 10y ago
  I do not understand why a rebranded geocities website to give everyone their own personal webpage, a 140 maximum character length bulletin board website, and glorified touchscreen bookmarks for websites are still considered to be examples of innovation. Facebook, twitter and apps have been around in some form since the beginning of the internet. Lab-on-a-chip technology has the potential to be the science fiction equivalent of a medical tricorder. Every doctor could have one and give instant patient feedback. Yet the expectation for this start up is to get it perfect from the beginning. They may lose all their VC's money but I bet that DARPA would still bankroll them.
minimaxir 10y ago
It's worth noting that The New York Times, where Nick Bilton worked previously, did not write any articles about Theranos/Holmes. (I checked) The discussion about the suspiciously positive press strongly resembles uBeam (http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/26/kill-the-cord/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/26/kill-the-cord/): the wunderkind founder, the game changing product. But no practical proof of concept and a weak defense when others point out it violates the laws of physics. (http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/)
- clorenzo 10y ago
  She was featured in this one: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/12/t-magazine/elizabeth-holmes-tech-visionaries-brian-chesky.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/12/t-magazine/eli...
  - malz 10y ago
    Which was followed by an admission of the conflict of interest in running a tech-hype story written by the wife of a wealthy VC. http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/conflict-of-interest-in-t-magazines-tech-article/ http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/conflict-of...
    - jrochkind1 10y ago
      This is some incredibly bizarre reasoning from the T editor: > it was my mistake in not asking her if there were any potential conflicts. This was an oversight on my part. I say this not as an excuse, but she is, separately from her husband, a billionaire (making her through marriage a billionaire twice over) and for that reason I think I failed to consider any monetary conflict in her case. She assumes that rich people have no 'monetary conflict' [of interest]? What?
      - untog 10y ago
        I think what they are saying is that she is independently wealthy - as such they didn't check into her husband in the same way they would have if she depended on him for money.
mbrundle 10y ago
I'm a bit puzzled by this article. Sure, the tech media didn't question it very much. But then again, I never really associated the tech media with any level of serious investigative journalism. I doubt they have the time, manpower or ability to really dig deep behind the PR barrier. Plus, as the article mentions, they make a lot of money from keeping companies happy. If I want someone to give me the lowdown on what's really going on, then I'll turn to the NYT first, not TechCrunch. Surely I'm not alone in this?
- bane 10y ago
  The tech media was, is and always will be a press release aggregator and paraphrasing service.
- MBCook 10y ago
  The fact that the tech press is a glorified PR copy machine doesn't mean we shouldn't hold them to real standards. Maybe some will rise to the challenge.
mikeryan 10y ago
It's kind of funny seeing this on a day when three traditional news outlets are screwing the pooch on the whole Craig Wright/Satoshi debacle.
- sigmar 10y ago
  That is the first thing that came to mind when I read this headline. The BBC article this morning on Craig Wright was embarrassing.
  - secfirstmd 10y ago
    The BBC's news coverage has gone down hill rapidly over the past few years unfortunately.
    - dublinben 10y ago
      Their technology coverage has always been shockingly bad.
aresant 10y ago
“If you look at most tech publications, they have major conferences as their revenue,” Jason Calacanis, the blogger and founder of Weblogs, told me. “If you hit too hard, you lose keynotes, ticket buyers, and support in the tech space.” I find it bizarre to bio Calacanis as a "blogger and founder of Weblogs" in the context of this quote. It makes him sound like an informed third party offering his two cents. When in fact Calacanis is less a "blogger" than a major force / champion of startup news via his "this week in startups" podcast, founder of inside.com which reports on startups, and runs Launch Festival which is exactly the kind of major conference he is pointing the finger at. And the author of the piece Nick Bilton has even appeared on Jason's start-up show http://muckrack.com/link/5Gn7/this-week-in-startups http://muckrack.com/link/5Gn7/this-week-in-startups so can't be that he's unaware that the outdated biline doesn't' make sense.
trekking101 10y ago
Anybody care to run the numbers on j-school grads at 'traditional' publishers v techcrunch et al? I stopped reading techcrunch years ago when it became clear they largely copied & pasted PR. Rarely do they ask competitors/industry pundits to comment, a standard journalistic practice.
- ghaff 10y ago
  I wouldn't use J-School grads as a particular proxy for anything. I've known J-School grads who worked for various IT publications (though not for less conventional pubs like Techcrunch). But then I know a number of WSJ reporters and op-ed (as well as at least one person who moved from IT trades to general business) who don;t have J-School degrees. There are a lot of ways to learn standard journalistic practice without going to school for it.
  - vemy 10y ago
    Juts like CS schools, I think the quality could be dependent on the specific school they graduated from.
    - chucksmash 10y ago
      Is it though? I've never run across an MIT grad so maybe the uniformly kickass grammers are hiding further up the curve, but there have certainly been grads of top 10 schools who I naively deferred to (as a junior, self-taught programmer) only to later regret that deference.
    - ghaff 10y ago
      This is a bit different. There are some accomplished programmers, software architects, etc. who don't have CS degrees, I think it's fair to say that they are in the distinct minority. On the other hand, I suspect that, among the top tier of journalists (admittedly difficult to measure), the majority--perhaps the great majority--do not have J-School degrees. There are better (e.g. Columbia) and worse journalism schools, for sure. But it's not the sort of prerequisite that other professional degrees can be.
zeemonkee3 10y ago
> After two months of being stonewalled by the Theranos P.R. team, Carreyrou told me an entourage of lawyers arrived at the Journal’s Midtown Manhattan offices at one P.M. on June 23. Interesting how Theranos tried to threaten the Wall Street Journal. Threatening journalists, even through legalistic means, sounds like a particularly dumb move: if nothing else it proved they were on the right track.
- mathattack 10y ago
  Newspapers struggle to pay the bills, though. If it looks like a lawsuit will cost a lot of money, many papers will just walk. It also increases the cost of fact checking the story.
  - duaneb 10y ago
    Seems like the type of suit that would be tossed before hitting trial--IANAL but the claims seem laughable.
  - c5karl 10y ago
    > If it looks like a lawsuit will cost a lot of money, many papers will just walk. What is this assertion based on? News organizations large and small carry insurance to protect them from lawsuits like this. Will the general counsel grill the newsroom leadership to make sure they can back up what's being printed and that they're not violating the law? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean they will be cowed by threats of nuisance lawsuits.
    - wpietri 10y ago
      I'm also skeptical. The journalists I know would love a fight like this. The marketing advantage to the paper could be huge. And the US legal protections for newspapers are so strong that suits like this are very, very hard to win. And that's just the general case. The WSJ isn't an ordinary paper; they can charge $400 a year because their readers believe they can get a business advantage. The moment readers think that anybody with a few lawyers can get a negative story killed is the moment they stop relying on the paper. And if somebody did end up taking them to the mat, they're owned by Rupert Murdoch, a famously combative media boss and son of a reporter whose net worth is north of $12 billion. The guy started Fox News, which might as well be called the Angry Shouty Channel. I cannot think of a worse person in the world to attempt to intimidate with a lawsuit.
exit 10y ago
it's hard to believe people still clock in at theranos these days, no?
- marincounty 10y ago
  I don't know if this technology works. If it doesn't--I don't care about rank and file workers just collecting a paycheck. I would the integrity of an insider(a scientist who knows the tech doesn't work) staying on. That said, I have found ethics are sorely missing in too many sectors of our ecomony. Personally, I've never been one of those guys who says, "Hay, it's legal!". I despise those people. I'll take a non-violet sociopath, over a guy with a fancy degree/suit who is exploiting the poor, and uniformed, just because they can. (I don't want to get in an argument over semantics--you know what I mean? I went too far with the sociopath, but I just trying to convey my frustration. I'm trying to expose what I'm seeing people do daily. I'm don't like this lack of integrity/morals. It's actually my biggest gripe. I've had it since I walked out of a processional program. Maybe I still smarting from losing $20 grand over placebo? Maybe I'm just getting older, and seeing just how far people will go on order to protect their economic future? I used to think, I could judge a person's ethics by looking back at the Milgram experiment. Original researchers believed 2-3 out of a hundred would deliver the fatal shock. They did the experiment, and over 60% delivered the fatal shock. I'm not just picking on Theranos' key researchers/scientists. I getting tired of doctors preforming unnecessary surgeries, or under treating the poor. I tired of lawyers going after people because they can. I'm tired of companies exploiting us because they can afford too, like VW. (I don't hate VW. There's a little part of me that understands what they did. I used VW because it was so recent, and I don't want to argue over Monsanto.) I have found that when that time comes, that time where you need to raise your hand; if it is tied to a person financial future--most people sit there quietly. And no--I don't expect the struggling student to buck the system, it's the one's who made it I'm looking at. I expecting them to set an example. Most don't. Or, maybe I'm looking at them in the wrong light? I'm too sick today to argue. I hope I'm wrong, and there are still people out there I can look up to?
FussyZeus 10y ago
I do actually feel bad for Holmes. Her later interviews sounded extremely like someone who had gotten in massively over their head and had no idea how to get out. She'll be stained forever by this, her name and Theranos are practically interchangeable at this point.
- vox_mollis 10y ago
  When will this absurd apologism end? Many people have gone to federal prison for FAR lesser frauds than Theranos is.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Whether she goes to prison or not, I don't understand how people have such sympathy for a CEO who drove her top researcher to suicide. If that happened in a movie critics would complain about the unbelievable mustache-twirling caricature.
    - FussyZeus 10y ago
      Wait what? Seriously, can I get a link on that one?
      - jessaustin 10y ago
        Of course no one is going to come out and admit that Ian Gibbons's suicide was caused by anything other than the "health and other problems" insinuated by Theranos's PR flack. Also we have to treat every suicide as a tragic failure of mental healthcare availability, rather than (occasionally) a rational reaction to intolerable circumstances. Gibbons was a top biochemist, hired away from academia with the copious combination of sunshine and VC cash that has long been Holmes's specialty. He staked a decade of his life and reputation on making the impossible real, because that's what she hired him to do. By his own words, he failed in that task. Then he committed suicide.
        10y ago
forgetsusername 10y ago
The question is: does anyone actually believe Theranos is the only one? They may be the "worst", but I firmly believe there are a few tech darlings that get exposed.
- tryitnow 10y ago
  Bingo. What is different is that most of the future frauds will be explicitly financial in nature, whereas Theranos was a scientific fraud. Material misrepresentation of revenues and costs structure, overinflated usage stats - that sort of thing.
redsummer 10y ago
Two points worth making: 1. The original Theranos scientist who started the project - Ian Gibbons - committed suicide after saying that "nothing was working" in 2013. After Gibbons wife spoke to the press, Theranos threatened to sue her. 2. The idea of a needle pricking the end of my finger, just to get one drop (not enough for analysis anyway) is horrible. Far better to get it from an area with less nerve endings which will get more blood - like the usual place in the crook of the arm. The whole idea was stupid to begin with.
- jimrandomh 10y ago
  If done correctly, getting a drop of blood with a finger prick hurts much less than getting it from a vein in the crook of the arm. I say this from experience, as a diabetic having done both many times.
musesum 10y ago
Last week, I decided to look at the Glassdoor reviews. Lots of positive reviews that sounded eerily similar. Then ran across the first negative review that claimed that the positive reviews were written by PR. Then more negative reviews making the same claim. Then re-read the positive reviews. All the "cons" started to sound like "pros", if you were an investor or journalist.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
pessimizer 10y ago
I don't think that the press can be blamed for the Theranos meltdown. All that's happened is that a bunch of investors are about to lose a bunch of money, and Walgreens got screwed. The investors and the guy at Walgreens were all people from Holmes' class (and people with personal connections to her and her family.) The tech press are also from that same class (or worshippers of that same class), and so they followed along in inflating the virtues of someone who neither they or the investors bothered to vet because white rich Stanford, fancy parents. Just because the tech press is terrible doesn't mean that its awful input had a meaningful effect on anything. If anything, the traditional business press at the WSJ registered the only significant effect; a positive one. But it isn't like the tech press coverage drew in the suckers - it wasn't a public company. Of course, I haven't heard anything about institutional investors. Maybe the public ended up getting screwed in the end anyway.
- hkmurakami 10y ago
  The public is nominally screwed through their pension funds investing in VC funds investing in Theranos, fwiw.
ShitlordVader 10y ago
She worked as an undergraduate in a Stanford microfluidics laboratory and happened to know a venture capitalist who was the original angel investor in Theranos. She is not the wozniak she is the Jobs because she can play the media and use them to help the company raise capital. Moving microfludics from academia into business is a great thing. The culprit is that the journalists did not even bother doing the bare minimum of background reading on the technology Theranos is using. I wish the media would ask how much of the market share the company will have and if they plan on expanding beyond Walgreens. Also there were rumors that small amounts of blood easily coagulate. If that is true then do they plan on using a blood thinner or fractionating the blood in a centrifuge and then testing it? How much uncertainty do they have in each of the tests they are performing on one drop of blood? Do they have enough capital to narrow the uncertainty? Are they having problems with the FDA approving their testing? What will happen to all the medical lab techs? Will they be let go or is blood testing only a small part of what lab techs do? Instead we get articles on gender, turtle necks and start up culture... http://microfluidics.stanford.edu/ http://microfluidics.stanford.edu/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lab-on-a-chip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lab-on-a-chip
chmaynard 10y ago
My hunch is that Holmes, clearly a highly intelligent woman, has a personality infused with high levels of narcissism and sociopathy. Her intelligent, curious side was probably overwhelmed by her negative traits after she had some initial success with Theranos.

153 points by forgotmyoldpw 10y ago

The media is 100% to blame here... I think in large part because of how they treat female entrepreneurs, with well-meaning, but harmful attitudes. IMO we live in a world where there are too few successful female entrepreneurs and at the same time people are very eager to see that world change. So as a result, if there is any inkling of a successful female entrepreneur, that story gets gobbled up by the press ad nauseam. A couple of problems created by this that stick out in my mind are: there's a lot unfair pressure for said female entrepreneur to succeed. And a lot of female entrepreneurs who would otherwise be ignored, suddenly find themselves as celebrity icons despite having any real success deserving of such praise, which creates a disastrous over confidence and the "personality" being placed before the business. Elizabeth Holes isn't the only one. Marissa Mayer was hailed a hero before crashing and burning. Less know is Sophia Amoruso, who despite only have a moderately popular online clothing shop (Nasty Gal), has written two books about her success and has an upcoming Netflix series about how "awesome" she is. And the press complete ignores the fact that Amoruso's company has gone through multiple lay-off rounds, has atrocious Glassdoor reviews, a declining relevancy, is being sued for firing pregnant women, and by all accounts is struggling to stay in business. All of this is true about Amoruso, but she still gets a Netflix series about how "wildly successful" she is...

dosgonlogs 10y ago
100%? So Elizabeth Holmes is blameless now? These CEO's and the press engage in what they believe to be a mutually beneficial endeavor. I think we can split the blame.
- Archio 10y ago
  I'm not the parent commenter. However, I think he/she might mean that the media is 100% culpable, not necessarily that the media is to blame for 100% of the problem.
  - dosgonlogs 10y ago
    Good chance you are right about that.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jamesash 10y ago
Surprised by the downvotes. Promoting Holmes as the next Jobs gave the tech press a chance to show how it was trumpeting diversity and gender balance in its coverage of founders. To those that downvoted - would you completely disagree that this played a role here?
- MBCook 10y ago
  > The media is 100% to blame implies that nothing happened here but the media overhyped someone. While clearly true, and I have no doubt having a young female entrepreneur was a good angle, that's not the story. If anyone promised what Theranos promised it would be a big story. Could have been a 73 year old Doctor. No big needle draws? Tons of tests right at the doctors office? No more slow giant labs? A big breakthrough like that is NEWS. Having a female founder was just one more bullet on the 'cool story' checklist. The hype would have been there without the female founder angle the OP focused on. Saying the media is 100% to blame also absolves Theranos, its board, and its founder. Even when being overhyped they shouldn't have lied. They shouldn't have hidden things. They could have acted MUCH better. They could have not sold their services while knowing they didn't work. Absolute best case: they were wrong about how good their machines. But due to hype they kept trying and thought 'we can fix this before were caught'. And it just snowballed and snowballed. I'll also point out the end of the comment tends to imply that women run companies into the ground or aren't qualified to succeed since all anecdotes are of failures. For my anecdote: I've heard companies tend to elect women to be CEOs when there is basically nothing left to lose and saving the company is nearly impossible. Because by that point they figure it doesn't matter they don't have the 'best', some other proven CEO that happens to usually be a guy.
  - jamesash 10y ago
    Thank you for explaining your point of view. Helpful.
redsummer 10y ago
The culture is 'to blame' if anything. The butt-kicking female entrepreneur / superhero is a standard trope now in Hollywood and TV. Being a young women, especially a blonde one, is catnip in "celebrity business". It's 'empowering'. It sells papers. It's also bullshit, but to think such a thing is a thought crime. The funniest thing is all these 90 year old crinkly men being conned into investing. What could they possibly know about hi tech products ... they barely remember how to go to the toilet, or if they are even alive. It reminds me of old Cold War diplomats rapidly losing their mental faculties after a couple of smiles from an Eastern Bloc Anastasia. A pretty woman in a room of powerful men can rapidly turn them into fools.
- aussieindian 10y ago
  Another instructive story comes from down under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_Gibson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_Gibson She was paraded as a brave and celebrated App developer who overcame serious health issues by the Australian press. and then it came crashing down.
MBCook 10y ago
> Marissa Mayer was hailed a hero before crashing and burning Did she? Or was she handed the reins to the Titanic and then vilified when it still sank? Could anyone have saved Yahoo? Would they have taken that job?
- spaceflunky 10y ago
  Marissa Mayer the executive definitely crashed a burned. She created no value for Yahoo. There isn't even one Yahoo success during her entire tenure that she is responsible. Marissa Mayer spent $2.3billion dollar on completely worthless startups. Marissa Mayer got lucky at Google and will never get lucky again. She will never do anything important in tech again. Could anyone save Yahoo? I don't know, but there are certainly people that could have done a better job than Marissa Mayer.

draw_down 10y ago

Non-tech press outlet: "Uhh, it wasn't us, it was them."

taylorbuley 10y ago
This is Nick Bilton, occasionally of the NYTimes. Definitely an insider, even if not preaching from the usual pulpit. He's legit and worth reading.
- joshdickson 10y ago
  Formerly of the NYTimes, he's now full time at Vanity Fair. This is the guy who wrote the book (literally) on Twitter. Quite legit.
ShitlordVader 10y ago
I do not understand why a rebranded geocities website to give everyone their own personal webpage, a 140 maximum character length bulletin board website, and glorified touchscreen bookmarks for websites are still considered to be examples of innovation. Facebook, twitter and apps have been around in some form since the beginning of the internet. Lab-on-a-chip technology has the potential to be the science fiction equivalent of a medical tricorder. Every doctor could have one and give instant patient feedback. Yet the expectation for this start up is to get it perfect from the beginning. They may lose all their VC's money but I bet that DARPA would still bankroll them.

minimaxir 10y ago

It's worth noting that The New York Times, where Nick Bilton worked previously, did not write any articles about Theranos/Holmes. (I checked) The discussion about the suspiciously positive press strongly resembles uBeam (http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/26/kill-the-cord/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/26/kill-the-cord/): the wunderkind founder, the game changing product. But no practical proof of concept and a weak defense when others point out it violates the laws of physics. (http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/)

clorenzo 10y ago
She was featured in this one: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/12/t-magazine/elizabeth-holmes-tech-visionaries-brian-chesky.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/12/t-magazine/eli...
- malz 10y ago
  Which was followed by an admission of the conflict of interest in running a tech-hype story written by the wife of a wealthy VC. http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/conflict-of-interest-in-t-magazines-tech-article/ http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/conflict-of...
  - jrochkind1 10y ago
    This is some incredibly bizarre reasoning from the T editor: > it was my mistake in not asking her if there were any potential conflicts. This was an oversight on my part. I say this not as an excuse, but she is, separately from her husband, a billionaire (making her through marriage a billionaire twice over) and for that reason I think I failed to consider any monetary conflict in her case. She assumes that rich people have no 'monetary conflict' [of interest]? What?
    - untog 10y ago
      I think what they are saying is that she is independently wealthy - as such they didn't check into her husband in the same way they would have if she depended on him for money.

mbrundle 10y ago

I'm a bit puzzled by this article. Sure, the tech media didn't question it very much. But then again, I never really associated the tech media with any level of serious investigative journalism. I doubt they have the time, manpower or ability to really dig deep behind the PR barrier. Plus, as the article mentions, they make a lot of money from keeping companies happy. If I want someone to give me the lowdown on what's really going on, then I'll turn to the NYT first, not TechCrunch. Surely I'm not alone in this?

bane 10y ago
The tech media was, is and always will be a press release aggregator and paraphrasing service.
MBCook 10y ago
The fact that the tech press is a glorified PR copy machine doesn't mean we shouldn't hold them to real standards. Maybe some will rise to the challenge.

mikeryan 10y ago

It's kind of funny seeing this on a day when three traditional news outlets are screwing the pooch on the whole Craig Wright/Satoshi debacle.

sigmar 10y ago
That is the first thing that came to mind when I read this headline. The BBC article this morning on Craig Wright was embarrassing.
- secfirstmd 10y ago
  The BBC's news coverage has gone down hill rapidly over the past few years unfortunately.
  - dublinben 10y ago
    Their technology coverage has always been shockingly bad.

aresant 10y ago

“If you look at most tech publications, they have major conferences as their revenue,” Jason Calacanis, the blogger and founder of Weblogs, told me. “If you hit too hard, you lose keynotes, ticket buyers, and support in the tech space.” I find it bizarre to bio Calacanis as a "blogger and founder of Weblogs" in the context of this quote. It makes him sound like an informed third party offering his two cents. When in fact Calacanis is less a "blogger" than a major force / champion of startup news via his "this week in startups" podcast, founder of inside.com which reports on startups, and runs Launch Festival which is exactly the kind of major conference he is pointing the finger at. And the author of the piece Nick Bilton has even appeared on Jason's start-up show http://muckrack.com/link/5Gn7/this-week-in-startups http://muckrack.com/link/5Gn7/this-week-in-startups so can't be that he's unaware that the outdated biline doesn't' make sense.

trekking101 10y ago

Anybody care to run the numbers on j-school grads at 'traditional' publishers v techcrunch et al? I stopped reading techcrunch years ago when it became clear they largely copied & pasted PR. Rarely do they ask competitors/industry pundits to comment, a standard journalistic practice.

ghaff 10y ago
I wouldn't use J-School grads as a particular proxy for anything. I've known J-School grads who worked for various IT publications (though not for less conventional pubs like Techcrunch). But then I know a number of WSJ reporters and op-ed (as well as at least one person who moved from IT trades to general business) who don;t have J-School degrees. There are a lot of ways to learn standard journalistic practice without going to school for it.
- vemy 10y ago
  Juts like CS schools, I think the quality could be dependent on the specific school they graduated from.
  - chucksmash 10y ago
    Is it though? I've never run across an MIT grad so maybe the uniformly kickass grammers are hiding further up the curve, but there have certainly been grads of top 10 schools who I naively deferred to (as a junior, self-taught programmer) only to later regret that deference.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    This is a bit different. There are some accomplished programmers, software architects, etc. who don't have CS degrees, I think it's fair to say that they are in the distinct minority. On the other hand, I suspect that, among the top tier of journalists (admittedly difficult to measure), the majority--perhaps the great majority--do not have J-School degrees. There are better (e.g. Columbia) and worse journalism schools, for sure. But it's not the sort of prerequisite that other professional degrees can be.

zeemonkee3 10y ago

> After two months of being stonewalled by the Theranos P.R. team, Carreyrou told me an entourage of lawyers arrived at the Journal’s Midtown Manhattan offices at one P.M. on June 23. Interesting how Theranos tried to threaten the Wall Street Journal. Threatening journalists, even through legalistic means, sounds like a particularly dumb move: if nothing else it proved they were on the right track.

mathattack 10y ago
Newspapers struggle to pay the bills, though. If it looks like a lawsuit will cost a lot of money, many papers will just walk. It also increases the cost of fact checking the story.
- duaneb 10y ago
  Seems like the type of suit that would be tossed before hitting trial--IANAL but the claims seem laughable.
- c5karl 10y ago
  > If it looks like a lawsuit will cost a lot of money, many papers will just walk. What is this assertion based on? News organizations large and small carry insurance to protect them from lawsuits like this. Will the general counsel grill the newsroom leadership to make sure they can back up what's being printed and that they're not violating the law? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean they will be cowed by threats of nuisance lawsuits.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    I'm also skeptical. The journalists I know would love a fight like this. The marketing advantage to the paper could be huge. And the US legal protections for newspapers are so strong that suits like this are very, very hard to win. And that's just the general case. The WSJ isn't an ordinary paper; they can charge $400 a year because their readers believe they can get a business advantage. The moment readers think that anybody with a few lawyers can get a negative story killed is the moment they stop relying on the paper. And if somebody did end up taking them to the mat, they're owned by Rupert Murdoch, a famously combative media boss and son of a reporter whose net worth is north of $12 billion. The guy started Fox News, which might as well be called the Angry Shouty Channel. I cannot think of a worse person in the world to attempt to intimidate with a lawsuit.

exit 10y ago

it's hard to believe people still clock in at theranos these days, no?

marincounty 10y ago
I don't know if this technology works. If it doesn't--I don't care about rank and file workers just collecting a paycheck. I would the integrity of an insider(a scientist who knows the tech doesn't work) staying on. That said, I have found ethics are sorely missing in too many sectors of our ecomony. Personally, I've never been one of those guys who says, "Hay, it's legal!". I despise those people. I'll take a non-violet sociopath, over a guy with a fancy degree/suit who is exploiting the poor, and uniformed, just because they can. (I don't want to get in an argument over semantics--you know what I mean? I went too far with the sociopath, but I just trying to convey my frustration. I'm trying to expose what I'm seeing people do daily. I'm don't like this lack of integrity/morals. It's actually my biggest gripe. I've had it since I walked out of a processional program. Maybe I still smarting from losing $20 grand over placebo? Maybe I'm just getting older, and seeing just how far people will go on order to protect their economic future? I used to think, I could judge a person's ethics by looking back at the Milgram experiment. Original researchers believed 2-3 out of a hundred would deliver the fatal shock. They did the experiment, and over 60% delivered the fatal shock. I'm not just picking on Theranos' key researchers/scientists. I getting tired of doctors preforming unnecessary surgeries, or under treating the poor. I tired of lawyers going after people because they can. I'm tired of companies exploiting us because they can afford too, like VW. (I don't hate VW. There's a little part of me that understands what they did. I used VW because it was so recent, and I don't want to argue over Monsanto.) I have found that when that time comes, that time where you need to raise your hand; if it is tied to a person financial future--most people sit there quietly. And no--I don't expect the struggling student to buck the system, it's the one's who made it I'm looking at. I expecting them to set an example. Most don't. Or, maybe I'm looking at them in the wrong light? I'm too sick today to argue. I hope I'm wrong, and there are still people out there I can look up to?

FussyZeus 10y ago

I do actually feel bad for Holmes. Her later interviews sounded extremely like someone who had gotten in massively over their head and had no idea how to get out. She'll be stained forever by this, her name and Theranos are practically interchangeable at this point.

vox_mollis 10y ago
When will this absurd apologism end? Many people have gone to federal prison for FAR lesser frauds than Theranos is.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Whether she goes to prison or not, I don't understand how people have such sympathy for a CEO who drove her top researcher to suicide. If that happened in a movie critics would complain about the unbelievable mustache-twirling caricature.
  - FussyZeus 10y ago
    Wait what? Seriously, can I get a link on that one?
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      Of course no one is going to come out and admit that Ian Gibbons's suicide was caused by anything other than the "health and other problems" insinuated by Theranos's PR flack. Also we have to treat every suicide as a tragic failure of mental healthcare availability, rather than (occasionally) a rational reaction to intolerable circumstances. Gibbons was a top biochemist, hired away from academia with the copious combination of sunshine and VC cash that has long been Holmes's specialty. He staked a decade of his life and reputation on making the impossible real, because that's what she hired him to do. By his own words, he failed in that task. Then he committed suicide.
      - 10y ago

forgetsusername 10y ago

The question is: does anyone actually believe Theranos is the only one? They may be the "worst", but I firmly believe there are a few tech darlings that get exposed.

tryitnow 10y ago
Bingo. What is different is that most of the future frauds will be explicitly financial in nature, whereas Theranos was a scientific fraud. Material misrepresentation of revenues and costs structure, overinflated usage stats - that sort of thing.

redsummer 10y ago

Two points worth making: 1. The original Theranos scientist who started the project - Ian Gibbons - committed suicide after saying that "nothing was working" in 2013. After Gibbons wife spoke to the press, Theranos threatened to sue her. 2. The idea of a needle pricking the end of my finger, just to get one drop (not enough for analysis anyway) is horrible. Far better to get it from an area with less nerve endings which will get more blood - like the usual place in the crook of the arm. The whole idea was stupid to begin with.

jimrandomh 10y ago
If done correctly, getting a drop of blood with a finger prick hurts much less than getting it from a vein in the crook of the arm. I say this from experience, as a diabetic having done both many times.

musesum 10y ago

Last week, I decided to look at the Glassdoor reviews. Lots of positive reviews that sounded eerily similar. Then ran across the first negative review that claimed that the positive reviews were written by PR. Then more negative reviews making the same claim. Then re-read the positive reviews. All the "cons" started to sound like "pros", if you were an investor or journalist.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

pessimizer 10y ago

I don't think that the press can be blamed for the Theranos meltdown. All that's happened is that a bunch of investors are about to lose a bunch of money, and Walgreens got screwed. The investors and the guy at Walgreens were all people from Holmes' class (and people with personal connections to her and her family.) The tech press are also from that same class (or worshippers of that same class), and so they followed along in inflating the virtues of someone who neither they or the investors bothered to vet because white rich Stanford, fancy parents. Just because the tech press is terrible doesn't mean that its awful input had a meaningful effect on anything. If anything, the traditional business press at the WSJ registered the only significant effect; a positive one. But it isn't like the tech press coverage drew in the suckers - it wasn't a public company. Of course, I haven't heard anything about institutional investors. Maybe the public ended up getting screwed in the end anyway.

hkmurakami 10y ago
The public is nominally screwed through their pension funds investing in VC funds investing in Theranos, fwiw.

ShitlordVader 10y ago

She worked as an undergraduate in a Stanford microfluidics laboratory and happened to know a venture capitalist who was the original angel investor in Theranos. She is not the wozniak she is the Jobs because she can play the media and use them to help the company raise capital. Moving microfludics from academia into business is a great thing. The culprit is that the journalists did not even bother doing the bare minimum of background reading on the technology Theranos is using. I wish the media would ask how much of the market share the company will have and if they plan on expanding beyond Walgreens. Also there were rumors that small amounts of blood easily coagulate. If that is true then do they plan on using a blood thinner or fractionating the blood in a centrifuge and then testing it? How much uncertainty do they have in each of the tests they are performing on one drop of blood? Do they have enough capital to narrow the uncertainty? Are they having problems with the FDA approving their testing? What will happen to all the medical lab techs? Will they be let go or is blood testing only a small part of what lab techs do? Instead we get articles on gender, turtle necks and start up culture... http://microfluidics.stanford.edu/ http://microfluidics.stanford.edu/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lab-on-a-chip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lab-on-a-chip

chmaynard 10y ago

My hunch is that Holmes, clearly a highly intelligent woman, has a personality infused with high levels of narcissism and sociopathy. Her intelligent, curious side was probably overwhelmed by her negative traits after she had some initial success with Theranos.