> Their goal should be informing the public-- putting SBF up does that, he's not duping anyone else now. Arguably, allowing SBF to make unsubstantiated claims

> Their goal should be informing the public-- putting SBF up does that, he's not duping anyone else now. Arguably, allowing SBF to make unsubstantiated claims and not challenging them is the opposite of informing the public. Like you've said, many institutions are unwilling to challenge even the most vile scammers, and it's because interviewing the scammer generates clicks and the scammer won't agree to come on if they know they'll be challenged. It isn't just journalism either: lot's of auditing firms more-or-less rubber stamp their larger customers because giving them a hard time means they won't be hired again; heck, the ratings agencies were key factors that lead to the 2008 collapse, for similar reasons.