3 ms·

It's pretty insane to me that you think the NYT would ever deliberately print accusations they couldn't prove. I also think you're massively overstating the ro

It's pretty insane to me that you think the NYT would ever deliberately print accusations they couldn't prove. I also think you're massively overstating the role of the NY Times, yes they have resources but they have to cover massive breadth. The NY Times isn't really going to be an expert in every topic, and there are real expert reporters out there who are going to dig in to this for specialist information. In this case there are reporters covering tech and finance - so you're going to see good articles from Levine, and the Odd Lots people, Michael Lewis was literally shadowing SBF for 6 months. Arguably the Odd Lots guys got to this first - basically getting SBF to admit he was running a ponzi in an interview - an admission that made absolutely no difference because everyone kind of knew it was all a scam anyway. If you said to me there's an article about FTX I would be looking for it in Bloomberg or the FT, not the NYT.

jasmer 4y ago
"NYT would ever deliberately print accusations they couldn't prove." That statement implies a misrepresentation of what I said, and a misunderstanding of what journalists do. Journalist investigate, source, and provide clarity. This is one of the biggest frauds in history, it's the job of the NYT to investigate the issue, and show us what's up. If there's likely fraud, they should be spelling that out. They've already admitted to using deposits to make risky bets at Alameda, which is fraud. There should have been a lot more questions about that alone. Just to start. Instead, it was a light nothingburger puff piece. There are better sourced artifacts on Twitter - this very article provides more valuable information that the NYT. "basically getting SBF to admit he was running a ponzi in an interview - an admission that made absolutely no difference because everyone kind of knew it was all a scam anyway" To suggest that the people with collectively billions in FTX 'knew it was a ponzi/fraud' and willingly lost all of their money is absurd.
danem 4y ago
> It's pretty insane to me that you think the NYT would ever deliberately print accusations they couldn't prove. What are they doing when they cite "unnamed sources"? They constantly publish accusations that they have no intention of ever backing up. I'm not saying that they don't believe their sources, but "100% bulletproof" has never been their standard.

jasmer 4y ago

"NYT would ever deliberately print accusations they couldn't prove." That statement implies a misrepresentation of what I said, and a misunderstanding of what journalists do. Journalist investigate, source, and provide clarity. This is one of the biggest frauds in history, it's the job of the NYT to investigate the issue, and show us what's up. If there's likely fraud, they should be spelling that out. They've already admitted to using deposits to make risky bets at Alameda, which is fraud. There should have been a lot more questions about that alone. Just to start. Instead, it was a light nothingburger puff piece. There are better sourced artifacts on Twitter - this very article provides more valuable information that the NYT. "basically getting SBF to admit he was running a ponzi in an interview - an admission that made absolutely no difference because everyone kind of knew it was all a scam anyway" To suggest that the people with collectively billions in FTX 'knew it was a ponzi/fraud' and willingly lost all of their money is absurd.

danem 4y ago

> It's pretty insane to me that you think the NYT would ever deliberately print accusations they couldn't prove. What are they doing when they cite "unnamed sources"? They constantly publish accusations that they have no intention of ever backing up. I'm not saying that they don't believe their sources, but "100% bulletproof" has never been their standard.