3 ms·

In such a case either the journalists didn't do their job (because they should have interviewed those folks, to obtain an explanation about the red-flag rejecti

• asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  "I, a close adviser to one of the richest men in the world, will given an interview about the failure of my advice to him." Hrm. I wouldn't expect someone in such a position to be eager to be interviewed. It doesn't provide evidence either way in my accounting. Even if they did give an interview, what do you think they would say? "Yeah, we totally ignored the feedback about political risks. Didn't even read it. And it blew up in our faces. Aren't we dumb?" There's no way that it would be admitted. It would be framed as a calculated gambit either way.
  • natmaka 7y ago
    When the the red flag were raised if they had a solid new theory against them, they now can explain it to the journalist. If this new theory isn't dumb, even if it proved wrong, it may save their faces (as there often is some useful lesson to draw from such "this new idea is apparently good, let's put it at test" failure). They didn't. Therefore either the journalist didn't interview them (or neglected their answer), xor they didn't reply because they had no new theory, and their only motive was "let's try to Please the Master, by sheer luck we may succeed and will benefit from it, and in case of failure the Master will not punish because he liked the objective and the approach".