4 ms·

I honestly think it has less to do with money and more the fact they want to save face. They spent the last few years building him up. Whether the pretty gene

by robswc 4y ago

I honestly think it has less to do with money and more the fact they want to save face. They spent the last few years building him up. Whether the pretty generous donations contributed to that... would almost be irrelevant. All I'm saying is if SBF were not really "in favor" with many in the establishment/journalists, I feel his shady dealings would have been highlighted vs mitigated. I mean Forbes just put out an article about Coraline where it made her out to be a "misguided, whizz kid." Its great that Vox was blunt... but almost every other publication seems to have dropped the ball.

hotpotamus 4y ago
> Fortune magazine put SBF on its cover this year asking, “The Next Warren Buffett?” Now the author of that story, Jeff John Roberts, confesses, “I was charmed by his nerdy affect as SBF, unkempt in a T-shirt and bushy hair, as he twirled a fidget spinner and rattled off tidbits about everything from M&A strategy to the macroeconomy to the importance of trust in business deals. It was all bullshit, of course, and I didn’t see through it.” https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/how-sbf-sweet-talked-the-media.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/how-sbf-sweet-talked... I've seen a lot of hate on "the media" for being fooled by Bankman-Fried which is fine, but I get the feeling those who disparage "the media" as a singular entity with a singular agenda weren't really inclined to trust them to begin with.
- robswc 4y ago
  I never really trust the media because 1) I briefly worked with a few and 2) I've seen them report on areas of my expertise and they got so, so many things wrong or misleading. (and this was before our world became highly politicized too) I just chalk this up to another reason. I would have loved to come on here and leave a comment like "typically, I don't like how the media handles things but I'm glad they didn't hold back." I'm glad that the author of one of the articles that put SBF on a pedestal was honest about being fooled. I knew and talked with SBF circa 2018-19. I was fooled too, so I totally understand that. What I don't understand is why we need articles from supposedly "prestigious" NYT and Forbes that convey that Sam and Caroline were just misguided MIT whiz kids.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    The world is a very complicated place and it's hard to boil complex subjects down into a few minute story (and that's fairly long form these days). I suppose I never had too many illusions because my mother was a local journalist who, looking back on it, was pretty excellent at it - she was industrious and really good with people, meaning she was great at getting out and talking to people, maintaining a network of sources, and asking questions. Probably he biggest strength was just her interest in people and her ability to get them to open up using that interest. She's even somewhat curious about discussing devops / internet infrastructure with me (I sense some effort on her part) which are not subjects that tend to get much interest from people. She'd be the first to tell you that she wasn't an expert in much of what they did; how could she be? What she was committed to was journalist ethics - conforming to a set of rules and correcting mistakes when they happen. In some sense, she's still at it. She's nearing retirement, but is still technically in the role, but it's been vastly diminished by one company or other over her career. I don't know what magic there was in the post-WWII American Economy that tended to make things work so well, but it is clearly lost, and I'm starting to suspect it won't be returning in my lifetime. So I'd call myself a media skeptic (and a skeptic overall) as well, but I suppose that means I understand that "The Media" is a diverse human institution with all the problems and failings that entails, and as such, I don't get too wrapped up in the failures. And I suppose the question is, were Samoline (let's bring back the celebrity couple portmanteu, it's really funny in this context) 100% scammers, or were they 100% misguided idiot savants? It's never clear is it because it's never 100% anything. Madoff is the famous scammer of his era, but I believe his fund was legitimate in the beginning. So it's natural that there will be some debate on the topic. Michael Lewis was there and will give his view of events, but many books will be written in the years ahead.

by robswc 4y ago

hotpotamus 4y ago

> Fortune magazine put SBF on its cover this year asking, “The Next Warren Buffett?” Now the author of that story, Jeff John Roberts, confesses, “I was charmed by his nerdy affect as SBF, unkempt in a T-shirt and bushy hair, as he twirled a fidget spinner and rattled off tidbits about everything from M&A strategy to the macroeconomy to the importance of trust in business deals. It was all bullshit, of course, and I didn’t see through it.” https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/how-sbf-sweet-talked-the-media.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/how-sbf-sweet-talked... I've seen a lot of hate on "the media" for being fooled by Bankman-Fried which is fine, but I get the feeling those who disparage "the media" as a singular entity with a singular agenda weren't really inclined to trust them to begin with.

robswc 4y ago
I never really trust the media because 1) I briefly worked with a few and 2) I've seen them report on areas of my expertise and they got so, so many things wrong or misleading. (and this was before our world became highly politicized too) I just chalk this up to another reason. I would have loved to come on here and leave a comment like "typically, I don't like how the media handles things but I'm glad they didn't hold back." I'm glad that the author of one of the articles that put SBF on a pedestal was honest about being fooled. I knew and talked with SBF circa 2018-19. I was fooled too, so I totally understand that. What I don't understand is why we need articles from supposedly "prestigious" NYT and Forbes that convey that Sam and Caroline were just misguided MIT whiz kids.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  The world is a very complicated place and it's hard to boil complex subjects down into a few minute story (and that's fairly long form these days). I suppose I never had too many illusions because my mother was a local journalist who, looking back on it, was pretty excellent at it - she was industrious and really good with people, meaning she was great at getting out and talking to people, maintaining a network of sources, and asking questions. Probably he biggest strength was just her interest in people and her ability to get them to open up using that interest. She's even somewhat curious about discussing devops / internet infrastructure with me (I sense some effort on her part) which are not subjects that tend to get much interest from people. She'd be the first to tell you that she wasn't an expert in much of what they did; how could she be? What she was committed to was journalist ethics - conforming to a set of rules and correcting mistakes when they happen. In some sense, she's still at it. She's nearing retirement, but is still technically in the role, but it's been vastly diminished by one company or other over her career. I don't know what magic there was in the post-WWII American Economy that tended to make things work so well, but it is clearly lost, and I'm starting to suspect it won't be returning in my lifetime. So I'd call myself a media skeptic (and a skeptic overall) as well, but I suppose that means I understand that "The Media" is a diverse human institution with all the problems and failings that entails, and as such, I don't get too wrapped up in the failures. And I suppose the question is, were Samoline (let's bring back the celebrity couple portmanteu, it's really funny in this context) 100% scammers, or were they 100% misguided idiot savants? It's never clear is it because it's never 100% anything. Madoff is the famous scammer of his era, but I believe his fund was legitimate in the beginning. So it's natural that there will be some debate on the topic. Michael Lewis was there and will give his view of events, but many books will be written in the years ahead.