6 ms·

I started to write a thoughtful and balanced analysis of this article...but then I stopped myself. The reason I stopped myself is that I thought about all the

I started to write a thoughtful and balanced analysis of this article...but then I stopped myself. The reason I stopped myself is that I thought about all the journalists like this lady who played the same game with Theranos and continue to play similar games with all of the rotten corporate and government entities in the county. Then I started getting genuinely pissed off! What. the. f*ck did I just read? She openly admits to the following: 1. She came to the story with a predetermined framing of the story. 2. She allowed herself to be bribed with the “treat” of talking to Elizabeth Holmes and then backed off under threat and misdirection while pretending to be immune to such behavior. 3. She sat on the story because she couldn’t spin it the way she had intended in advance and allowed herself to be threatened. I am not exaggerating, she literally writes “I lost the story so I moved on...” Lost the story directly translates to: “I knew what I wanted to report and what would get clicks, I didn’t get that so I gave up.” 4. She proudly presents this article years after the fact pretending to retroactively have known something was wrong...and to have maintained her journalistic ethics while openly admitting to dropping the story once it didn’t fit the framing she hoped to apply to it. 5. She waited until well after the tide of public opinion had turned against Theranos to capitalize on the work of others who actually did the hard journalism to get clicks. This lady should be fired, she is not a journalist. Why should we give her a pass when hundreds of other fake journalists did exactly the same with Theranos? When do we all say: “Enough is enough?” This is everything wrong with American media in one article, the attempts to feign journalistic ethics after the fact while generating more clicks is sickening. People died from Theranos!

ipsum2 9y ago
While I agree with you, there aren't any known case of people dying from Theranos: https://www.quora.com/Did-people-die-from-relying-on-Theranos-inaccurate-blood-testing-device https://www.quora.com/Did-people-die-from-relying-on-Therano...
- perl4ever 9y ago
  You just linked to someone who states (a) statistically, there must have been deaths from faulty tests, and (b) quotes a lawsuit over the negative health consequences of the tests. It doesn't seem like your link jibes with your dismissive comment, not in spirit, nor in a strict technical sense.
spookthesunset 9y ago
You have to consider that if these journalists get a reputation for publishing "hit pieces", they'll stop getting access. Does that make it right? No. But consider the journalists incentives. Also consider what happens if said journalist gets a reputation for publishing negative articles. It's the same reason you hardly ever see articles bashing popular stocks or investments even though they are outright scams or wildly inflated (eg: bitcoin). People say they want hard hitting tough news, but I actually think the reality shows this isn't the case.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Oh yeah the BTC mafia can get any journo fired. That's why we haven't seen anything criticizing BTC. Wat?
metabagel 9y ago
Perhaps she didn't have the budget to pursue her questions further. Journalists don't have a blanket obligation to chase every story. They work for a living, just like the rest of us.
maxpupmax 9y ago
Hey Zeroday, I agree with point 5 and 4, it's a bit of a bandwagon. However the article doesn't contain the quote you mentioned in point 3. Also, the only reported death due to Theranos that I can find is the sad death of the Chief Science Officer who killed himself. I disagree with the premise that she should be fired. Reporters pitch stories all the time with specific premises... I'm trying to imagine taking what she wrote and putting into any kind of coherent narrative. It's not the kind of thing that would have made an impact, I don't think.
eridius 9y ago
What are you talking about? She came to the story with an expectation of the story she was going to write - a consumer-focused story about the finger prick stuff. You say "predetermined framing", as if she's covering a political issue and is biased, but what you're actually talking about is just the normal process of "reporter comes up with an idea for a story, and goes out to see if they can get it done". This is no more problematic than, say, a reporter going to the zoo with the "predetermined framing" of writing a story on a Panda bear. She wasn't 'bribed'. I don't see any supporting evidence for that whatsoever. Theranos PR tried to get her to back off by threatening to pull the interview with Holmes, but the reporter didn't agree to that, so it didn't happen. She sat on the story not because she "couldn't spin it the way she had intended" but because the story she set out to write simply wasn't there. She couldn't write a consumer-focused story about "less is more" without finding patients actually getting the finger prick, and she couldn't find any patients getting the finger prick. What she did find was a bunch of suspicious behavior, but the suspicious behavior alone wasn't a story. Yes, she could have decided to spend a while digging in the hopes of uncovering a different story altogether about Theranos. But I can't really fault her for not doing that. Maybe (without knowing anything about the journalist) that kind of investigative reporting isn't what she does? Maybe she knew that kind of story would take a ton of work, if it even went anywhere, and she didn't have the time to do it? Maybe she knew her editor wouldn't approve that kind of story? Or something else entirely. Most likely, she just had some suspicious stuff, but didn't have enough to sustain the belief that Theranos was actually engaged in widespread fraud, and so decided that it wasn't worth spending a bunch of time tracking down the likely-innocuous explanation, especially since a Theranos lawyer promised her that more than 50% of test were done with a finger prick.
pavlov 9y ago
Do you realize that journalists don't get to pick how they spend their time? They're just like other employees: a manager decides what they should be working on. In this case, management had wanted the Holmes interview. The journalist couldn't deliver that, but came back with the seed for a different story: is Theranos actually doing finger-prick tests? We don't know who decided not to pursue that story, but it seems reasonable to assume it wasn't the journalist. Now you want the employee fired for that decision. It's totally unfair. If you want journalists to be free from employment constraints, you should be donating to individual freelancers so they'd have financial freedom.
pdonis 9y ago
> This is everything wrong with American media in one article 100% agree. What she should have done was not cancel the feature, but write what actually happened--right after it happened, not now, when Theranos has already been outed as a fraud and she's just another one jumping on the bandwagon.
- wyattpeak 9y ago
  What story? "I went to Theranos, didn't get to talk to anyone who did the test, then there was a fire alarm"? It all fits together quite nicely in hindsight when stuffed with a bunch of vague accusations and synthesis about motives, but I would have agreed with any editor axing the story at the time. For the record, I assume her suspicions about people getting cagey, and maybe even the fire alarm, are quite right. But once again, hindsight.
  - pdonis 9y ago
    > What story? "The actual services Theranos appears to be providing to patients does not match the services Theranos claims to provide in its PR statements." That seems like (a) useful information to other potential Theranos patients, and (b) exactly the sort of information that "investigative journalism" is supposed to be providing to the public.
    - wyattpeak 9y ago
      But that's not true. Theranos were absolutely doing finger-prick tests, as is stated in the article. The fact that the journalist didn't see any may well be cause to go back and try to find evidence, but a lack of evidence isn't a story in itself. I'd point out, too, that if the journalist believed at the time that it was an outright lie, I seriously doubt that she would have dropped it - it's too big a story. More likely she had some misgivings which have been amplified in the wake of the recent news.
      - pdonis 9y ago
        > Theranos were absolutely doing finger-prick tests Yes--much, much less often than their PR led people to expect. Also, they were actually getting much less information from a single finger prick than their PR was claiming. That's why they were having to do full venipuncture blood draws for tests that their PR led many people to believe would only require a finger prick. > The fact that the journalist didn't see any may well be cause to go back and try to find evidence Which she didn't. > if the journalist believed at the time that it was an outright lie, I seriously doubt that she would have dropped it - it's too big a story. More likely she had some misgivings Which she should have followed up at the time, if she were really an investigative journalist.
defen 9y ago
She could have kept digging and probably ended up with a Pulitzer; instead John Carreyrou is going to get another one.
megablast 9y ago
1. How do you think journalism works? They just wander around talking to people and come up with a story later? Now I agree this story would have been great to come out earlier, but that isn't her decision. You seriously have a childlike understanding of how journalism works. How do you think developers work, they just write whatever they want to write, and someone will merge that code into a product?
xenihn 9y ago
Journalists don't get paid enough to not act in their own best interests. You're getting mad at the wrong person here.
stordoff 9y ago
> She came to the story with a predetermined framing of the story. In that it was a simple report on the patient experience, rather than being a deep investigative piece? That doesn't seem egregious or necessarily biased in a particular direction (it could either be a positive or negative experience), and there is some push back against Theranos guiding the piece ("wouldn’t I just rather get a finger prick myself and report on the experience, as so many other journalists had agreed to do? [/] I said no.") > She allowed herself to be bribed with the “treat” of talking to Elizabeth Holmes How? She rejects the initial condition that Theranos try to impose (not talking to other sources), and the condition in the threat was something the journalist had already indicated was necessary (talking to an actual patient getting the finger prick) nor did she change course at that point in order to secure the interview with Holmes. > She sat on the story What story? "I tried to do an interview but there was a fire alarm" -- that's basically all there is without significantly more digging, which she may not have the time/resources/connections/organisational support to undertake. Even if you publish the angle that not many people seemed to be getting the finger prick test, Theranos will just rebut it with the "significantly more than 50 percent of the tests are done with a finger prick" line and that the journalist did not see a representative sample. > She waited until well after the tide of public opinion had turned against Theranos to capitalize on the work of others who actually did the hard journalism to get clicks. I agree that it seems to be something of a bandwagon, and almost to get some credit after the fact, and that framing it as "I always knew something was wrong" paints the decisions made at the time in a poor light. However, given what was known at the time, I don't think any outrageous decisions were made, particularly as this was written with the benefit of hindsight so not as many red flags may have been raised at the time. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that journalists do a deep dive on every company they cover, especially when writing a relatively simple piece. Would there have been merit in publishing the piece? Certainly, especially given what we now know, but I can also see how you would conclude there is nothing important/interesting you can conclusively say based on those events.

ipsum2 9y ago

While I agree with you, there aren't any known case of people dying from Theranos: https://www.quora.com/Did-people-die-from-relying-on-Theranos-inaccurate-blood-testing-device https://www.quora.com/Did-people-die-from-relying-on-Therano...

perl4ever 9y ago
You just linked to someone who states (a) statistically, there must have been deaths from faulty tests, and (b) quotes a lawsuit over the negative health consequences of the tests. It doesn't seem like your link jibes with your dismissive comment, not in spirit, nor in a strict technical sense.

spookthesunset 9y ago

You have to consider that if these journalists get a reputation for publishing "hit pieces", they'll stop getting access. Does that make it right? No. But consider the journalists incentives. Also consider what happens if said journalist gets a reputation for publishing negative articles. It's the same reason you hardly ever see articles bashing popular stocks or investments even though they are outright scams or wildly inflated (eg: bitcoin). People say they want hard hitting tough news, but I actually think the reality shows this isn't the case.

jessaustin 9y ago
Oh yeah the BTC mafia can get any journo fired. That's why we haven't seen anything criticizing BTC. Wat?

metabagel 9y ago

Perhaps she didn't have the budget to pursue her questions further. Journalists don't have a blanket obligation to chase every story. They work for a living, just like the rest of us.

maxpupmax 9y ago

Hey Zeroday, I agree with point 5 and 4, it's a bit of a bandwagon. However the article doesn't contain the quote you mentioned in point 3. Also, the only reported death due to Theranos that I can find is the sad death of the Chief Science Officer who killed himself. I disagree with the premise that she should be fired. Reporters pitch stories all the time with specific premises... I'm trying to imagine taking what she wrote and putting into any kind of coherent narrative. It's not the kind of thing that would have made an impact, I don't think.

eridius 9y ago

What are you talking about? She came to the story with an expectation of the story she was going to write - a consumer-focused story about the finger prick stuff. You say "predetermined framing", as if she's covering a political issue and is biased, but what you're actually talking about is just the normal process of "reporter comes up with an idea for a story, and goes out to see if they can get it done". This is no more problematic than, say, a reporter going to the zoo with the "predetermined framing" of writing a story on a Panda bear. She wasn't 'bribed'. I don't see any supporting evidence for that whatsoever. Theranos PR tried to get her to back off by threatening to pull the interview with Holmes, but the reporter didn't agree to that, so it didn't happen. She sat on the story not because she "couldn't spin it the way she had intended" but because the story she set out to write simply wasn't there. She couldn't write a consumer-focused story about "less is more" without finding patients actually getting the finger prick, and she couldn't find any patients getting the finger prick. What she did find was a bunch of suspicious behavior, but the suspicious behavior alone wasn't a story. Yes, she could have decided to spend a while digging in the hopes of uncovering a different story altogether about Theranos. But I can't really fault her for not doing that. Maybe (without knowing anything about the journalist) that kind of investigative reporting isn't what she does? Maybe she knew that kind of story would take a ton of work, if it even went anywhere, and she didn't have the time to do it? Maybe she knew her editor wouldn't approve that kind of story? Or something else entirely. Most likely, she just had some suspicious stuff, but didn't have enough to sustain the belief that Theranos was actually engaged in widespread fraud, and so decided that it wasn't worth spending a bunch of time tracking down the likely-innocuous explanation, especially since a Theranos lawyer promised her that more than 50% of test were done with a finger prick.

pavlov 9y ago

Do you realize that journalists don't get to pick how they spend their time? They're just like other employees: a manager decides what they should be working on. In this case, management had wanted the Holmes interview. The journalist couldn't deliver that, but came back with the seed for a different story: is Theranos actually doing finger-prick tests? We don't know who decided not to pursue that story, but it seems reasonable to assume it wasn't the journalist. Now you want the employee fired for that decision. It's totally unfair. If you want journalists to be free from employment constraints, you should be donating to individual freelancers so they'd have financial freedom.

pdonis 9y ago

> This is everything wrong with American media in one article 100% agree. What she should have done was not cancel the feature, but write what actually happened--right after it happened, not now, when Theranos has already been outed as a fraud and she's just another one jumping on the bandwagon.

wyattpeak 9y ago
What story? "I went to Theranos, didn't get to talk to anyone who did the test, then there was a fire alarm"? It all fits together quite nicely in hindsight when stuffed with a bunch of vague accusations and synthesis about motives, but I would have agreed with any editor axing the story at the time. For the record, I assume her suspicions about people getting cagey, and maybe even the fire alarm, are quite right. But once again, hindsight.
- pdonis 9y ago
  > What story? "The actual services Theranos appears to be providing to patients does not match the services Theranos claims to provide in its PR statements." That seems like (a) useful information to other potential Theranos patients, and (b) exactly the sort of information that "investigative journalism" is supposed to be providing to the public.
  - wyattpeak 9y ago
    But that's not true. Theranos were absolutely doing finger-prick tests, as is stated in the article. The fact that the journalist didn't see any may well be cause to go back and try to find evidence, but a lack of evidence isn't a story in itself. I'd point out, too, that if the journalist believed at the time that it was an outright lie, I seriously doubt that she would have dropped it - it's too big a story. More likely she had some misgivings which have been amplified in the wake of the recent news.
    - pdonis 9y ago
      > Theranos were absolutely doing finger-prick tests Yes--much, much less often than their PR led people to expect. Also, they were actually getting much less information from a single finger prick than their PR was claiming. That's why they were having to do full venipuncture blood draws for tests that their PR led many people to believe would only require a finger prick. > The fact that the journalist didn't see any may well be cause to go back and try to find evidence Which she didn't. > if the journalist believed at the time that it was an outright lie, I seriously doubt that she would have dropped it - it's too big a story. More likely she had some misgivings Which she should have followed up at the time, if she were really an investigative journalist.

defen 9y ago

She could have kept digging and probably ended up with a Pulitzer; instead John Carreyrou is going to get another one.

megablast 9y ago

1. How do you think journalism works? They just wander around talking to people and come up with a story later? Now I agree this story would have been great to come out earlier, but that isn't her decision. You seriously have a childlike understanding of how journalism works. How do you think developers work, they just write whatever they want to write, and someone will merge that code into a product?

xenihn 9y ago

Journalists don't get paid enough to not act in their own best interests. You're getting mad at the wrong person here.

stordoff 9y ago

> She came to the story with a predetermined framing of the story. In that it was a simple report on the patient experience, rather than being a deep investigative piece? That doesn't seem egregious or necessarily biased in a particular direction (it could either be a positive or negative experience), and there is some push back against Theranos guiding the piece ("wouldn’t I just rather get a finger prick myself and report on the experience, as so many other journalists had agreed to do? [/] I said no.") > She allowed herself to be bribed with the “treat” of talking to Elizabeth Holmes How? She rejects the initial condition that Theranos try to impose (not talking to other sources), and the condition in the threat was something the journalist had already indicated was necessary (talking to an actual patient getting the finger prick) nor did she change course at that point in order to secure the interview with Holmes. > She sat on the story What story? "I tried to do an interview but there was a fire alarm" -- that's basically all there is without significantly more digging, which she may not have the time/resources/connections/organisational support to undertake. Even if you publish the angle that not many people seemed to be getting the finger prick test, Theranos will just rebut it with the "significantly more than 50 percent of the tests are done with a finger prick" line and that the journalist did not see a representative sample. > She waited until well after the tide of public opinion had turned against Theranos to capitalize on the work of others who actually did the hard journalism to get clicks. I agree that it seems to be something of a bandwagon, and almost to get some credit after the fact, and that framing it as "I always knew something was wrong" paints the decisions made at the time in a poor light. However, given what was known at the time, I don't think any outrageous decisions were made, particularly as this was written with the benefit of hindsight so not as many red flags may have been raised at the time. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that journalists do a deep dive on every company they cover, especially when writing a relatively simple piece. Would there have been merit in publishing the piece? Certainly, especially given what we now know, but I can also see how you would conclude there is nothing important/interesting you can conclusively say based on those events.