6 ms·
The NYT is writting puff pieces on SBF and hit pieces on other crypto companies
- breck 4y ago
- lupire 4y agoWhat happened to last week's meme that NYT owner ordered the staff to only write hit pieces about tech companies? Why is FTX exempt?
- mc32 4y agoWhat's that saying from the Watergate Towers scandal? Follow the money.
- sn0w_crash 4y agoFTX founder is (was?) a major donor to the democrats and has family ties to the establishment.
- g42gregory 4y agoThat is to be expected. FTX was funded by influential VCs/PE firms with strong reach into the media, including NYT. Additionally, SBF was a major donor to the NYT-affiliated political establishment. It stands to reason that the paper would write nice things about him.
- KerrAvon 4y agoHis partner was a donor to the other side. People should stop repeating this canard.
- braingenious 4y agoWhat a funny position to take. “Somebody else donated to a different group, therefore these events cancel each other out. It is as if nobody made any donations at all.”
- sn0w_crash 4y agoThat does not mean anything for SBF and people should not stop repeating this.
- misiti3780 4y agowhich partner?
- lupire 4y agoUnreadable giant Tweet thread.
- mensetmanusman 4y agoSBF was a member of the NYT donor class.
- bergenty 4y agoOur guy
- phphphphp 4y agoMedia coverage is a reflection, not a conspiracy. SBF pitched himself as virtuous, so the coverage reflected that. Jesse Powell and Brian Armstrong went the opposite direction (to varying degrees) so of course the coverage of them will focus on the contrarian aspects of their approach. We can, and should, hold the media to a high standard but not all journalism is equal: not all journalism is investigative journalism. Media is mostly just whatever people want to hear. Look at the coverage of Theranos pre-reveal, it was fawning because it was what people wanted to hear.
- setr 4y agoIs that what people wanted to hear, or what the subjects wanted said? I don’t think I know anyone who was particularly interested in hearing of theranos being fawned over, though I doubt anyone really minded it (insofar as they don’t mind all the other fawning).
- phphphphp 4y agoThere’s a symbiosis. Elizabeth Holmes was a fantastic story for the time, a self-made billionaire changing the world through healthcare innovations, she was on the front cover of magazines because it was a story people absolutely wanted to hear. Likewise with SBF, he’s this multi-billionaire crypto guy who lives like he’s poor! He wants to do good! He’s deep into effective altruism! That’s interesting to a lot of people. The uncritical platforming of these stories is definitely worth criticism, but I don’t believe there to be a grand conspiracy required for SBF to get a bunch of fawning coverage. (Specifically picking on the New York Times: they frequently publish puff pieces about all sorts of things, they have a long running column about wealthy people’s weddings. Taking a story that people will find interesting (billionaire drives a Corolla) and telling it with a big leading photo is just what a lot of journalism is. If you read every article in the NYT, the SBF piece is totally believable as par for the course without any motive beyond “it’s a story people will like reading”).
- bergenty 4y agoI like SBF. He did a bunch of good though he fucked up FTX and screwed over investors in the process.
- sn0w_crash 4y agoDoing “a bunch of good” with money you scammed from your customers is not actually doing a bunch of good.
- throwaway22032 4y agoI can't remember a time in which news media hasn't just been entertainment in this regard. The Kraken co-founder having certain political views, or SBF and his mates being some sort of unattractive orgy-clique, or whatever else, is like some sort of Hello magazine gossip nonsense. If I were a journalist I'd be focusing on things that allow people to improve their lives. Should I invest in XYZ (actual pros and cons), is it safe or unsafe for me to drive a car, what do the elections mean for me, etc etc. In this specific case it would have been really easy and simple to have articles that describe how to avoid being caught up in stuff like this, with the whole gamut of advice (ranging from "just don't use it, why risk it bro" to "transact peer to peer only" to "only keep small amounts at exchanges" or whatever else). Instead it feels as if many publications just like to spout opinionated nonsense about whatever. It's bizarre. You don't generally go into journalism for the money, so then what's the point in giving up your ideals and just writing total crap? A complete waste of time.
- sidcool 4y agoWhat does a puff piece mean?
- braingenious 4y agoAn intentionally biased piece of reporting meant specifically to portray a person/group/movement under a positive light. The opposite is called a “hit piece.”
- sidcool 4y agoThanks. What did NYT have to gain from glorifying SBF?
- braingenious 4y agoI don’t know. I was answering a question about the definition of a term. Do you have a theory?
- DLA 4y agoOf course they are. SBF was the second largest Democratic donor and the NYT is the Democratic Party mouthpiece. All the News That Fits the Narrative. Imagine the NYT firestorm if SBF was a massive donor for the Republican side. SBF is fully corrupt. NYT is largely corrupt.