4 ms·

> The most interest aspect in the FTX saga, for me, is that SBF was treated very gently by major news outlets (and maybe by government regulators too)... until

by bnralt 4y ago

> The most interest aspect in the FTX saga, for me, is that SBF was treated very gently by major news outlets (and maybe by government regulators too)... until regular individuals in social media started asking: Why is SBF being treated so kindly? Why would journalists (and regulators) assume that SBF meant well? I went through a few examples people brought up of journalists supposedly treating Bankman-Fried kindly the other day[1]. When I read what journalists were actually saying, they were quite negative about Bankman-Fried (saying he was "betraying his clients" or saying FTX "didn’t crumble due to bad luck, but what now appears to be unsustainable layers of deception"). The crypto community seems to be trying really hard to deflect from the fallout of yet another major crypto scam, and spinning whatever they can to make this seem like this is the fault of establishment non-crypto folks. Remember that just a few days ago people were claiming that Bankman-Fried hadn't been charged because he had paid off U.S. politicians. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33811681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33811681

reaperducer 4y ago
crypto community seems to be trying really hard to deflect from the fallout of yet another major crypto scam For the last few months, any time something bad happens with FTX, there are dozens of people who show up complaining that the media went easy on SBF. They most often use the word "puff" or the phrase "puff piece," as if the comments were all written by the same bot farm. Then when someone calls them out on it, they're suddenly silent. Which makes me agree with you that this is people trying to deflect from the greed at the root of this, trying to portray themselves as victims, and if the big media had just given them some warning, they wouldn't have lost billions of dollars.
- kibwen 4y ago
  Agreed, it's eye-rollingly obvious how cadres of users have been parroting talking points for various circles, some as an attempt at distraction/deflection and others as an attempt at political gain. It all appears to boil down to beating the same "lamestream media" horse. Never let a good crisis go waste, as they say.
zeven7 4y ago
> Several months ago, I found myself having a few mocktails and splitting vegan snacks with Sam Bankman-Fried at a restaurant near my house. We touched on, among other things, his proposal to create a new publication featuring writers he liked, including me. > I declined, which obviously in retrospect was the right choice. I told him that I like my Substack just fine and make plenty of money, though he was happy to offer more. But I also told him that given the extent to which we agree on a lot of important issues, I thought it was a lot more valuable to these causes for me to maintain credibility by not accepting any of his money. Meanwhile the CEO of The Block received a $43M "loan" from SBF[1]. [1] https://www.coindesk.com/podcasts/the-breakdown-with-nlw/sbf-loaned-the-ceo-of-the-block-43m/ https://www.coindesk.com/podcasts/the-breakdown-with-nlw/sbf...
sifar 4y ago
>> When I read what journalists were actually saying, they were quite negative about Bankman-Fried I think the issue was there was no pressing follow up to his evasive replies. e.g Sorkin's interview. He was basically allowed to get away with "I didn't knowingly do it."
- skybrian 4y ago
  Sometimes they don't follow up because the statement is obviously evasive nonsense and readers will see it. Just letting them say damning things on the record is a win. And if you don't confront them, maybe they'll say even more? It's like the military quote: "never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake."
  - freedude 4y ago
    Well lets be completely honest then... And sometimes they don't confront them because the media are shills.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    10 lies on 10 different topics is of greater value than spending an hour trying to pin down the one gotcha line on 1 thing. In effect Sorkin et al interviews has MADE the fraud case for the government. The lies are evidence there was intent to defraud.
    - sifar 4y ago
      Perhaps because of SBF's own hubris and not due to the way he was questioned ? I think it was the response to coffeezilla questions that might have him in a bind not the other mainstream journalists.
  - sifar 4y ago
    What you say seem plausible but, as an observer not privy to things, I am not sure how one can differentiate when someone is being allowed to get away versus being goaded to say incriminating things. But If you look at the written coverage at NYT about this, you will realize that in this case it is the former and not the latter. Yes one can argue that it might have been a plan to make him comfortable to talk at the interview - but yeah :). May be it is too subtle for me.
yterdy 4y ago
Your definition of "quite negative" and mine are very different. When it comes to situations like this (regarding a young man, his criminal misbehavior, and insitutional response to that behavior e.g., mass shooters), I generally go back to the New York Times' infamous characterization of Michael Brown - a black teenager shot dead in the street and in broad daylight, over a box of cigarillos, by a police officer with a checkered professional history - as "no angel" (among other declarations). If you can't muster something perhaps at least as critical for an older young man who has nuked a measure of wealth equivalent to about half the GDP of the country where his company was based (or, the total wealth of ~50,000 Americans at the median net worth; or, a few hundred million boxes of cigarillos), well... Maybe you're going easy on him. It's naive to think that affinity is not influencing, if not driving, the way that journalists regard and write about their subjects.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by bnralt 4y ago

reaperducer 4y ago

crypto community seems to be trying really hard to deflect from the fallout of yet another major crypto scam For the last few months, any time something bad happens with FTX, there are dozens of people who show up complaining that the media went easy on SBF. They most often use the word "puff" or the phrase "puff piece," as if the comments were all written by the same bot farm. Then when someone calls them out on it, they're suddenly silent. Which makes me agree with you that this is people trying to deflect from the greed at the root of this, trying to portray themselves as victims, and if the big media had just given them some warning, they wouldn't have lost billions of dollars.

kibwen 4y ago
Agreed, it's eye-rollingly obvious how cadres of users have been parroting talking points for various circles, some as an attempt at distraction/deflection and others as an attempt at political gain. It all appears to boil down to beating the same "lamestream media" horse. Never let a good crisis go waste, as they say.

zeven7 4y ago

> Several months ago, I found myself having a few mocktails and splitting vegan snacks with Sam Bankman-Fried at a restaurant near my house. We touched on, among other things, his proposal to create a new publication featuring writers he liked, including me. > I declined, which obviously in retrospect was the right choice. I told him that I like my Substack just fine and make plenty of money, though he was happy to offer more. But I also told him that given the extent to which we agree on a lot of important issues, I thought it was a lot more valuable to these causes for me to maintain credibility by not accepting any of his money. Meanwhile the CEO of The Block received a $43M "loan" from SBF[1]. [1] https://www.coindesk.com/podcasts/the-breakdown-with-nlw/sbf-loaned-the-ceo-of-the-block-43m/ https://www.coindesk.com/podcasts/the-breakdown-with-nlw/sbf...

sifar 4y ago

>> When I read what journalists were actually saying, they were quite negative about Bankman-Fried I think the issue was there was no pressing follow up to his evasive replies. e.g Sorkin's interview. He was basically allowed to get away with "I didn't knowingly do it."

skybrian 4y ago
Sometimes they don't follow up because the statement is obviously evasive nonsense and readers will see it. Just letting them say damning things on the record is a win. And if you don't confront them, maybe they'll say even more? It's like the military quote: "never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake."
- freedude 4y ago
  Well lets be completely honest then... And sometimes they don't confront them because the media are shills.
- blitzar 4y ago
  10 lies on 10 different topics is of greater value than spending an hour trying to pin down the one gotcha line on 1 thing. In effect Sorkin et al interviews has MADE the fraud case for the government. The lies are evidence there was intent to defraud.
  - sifar 4y ago
    Perhaps because of SBF's own hubris and not due to the way he was questioned ? I think it was the response to coffeezilla questions that might have him in a bind not the other mainstream journalists.
- sifar 4y ago
  What you say seem plausible but, as an observer not privy to things, I am not sure how one can differentiate when someone is being allowed to get away versus being goaded to say incriminating things. But If you look at the written coverage at NYT about this, you will realize that in this case it is the former and not the latter. Yes one can argue that it might have been a plan to make him comfortable to talk at the interview - but yeah :). May be it is too subtle for me.

yterdy 4y ago

Your definition of "quite negative" and mine are very different. When it comes to situations like this (regarding a young man, his criminal misbehavior, and insitutional response to that behavior e.g., mass shooters), I generally go back to the New York Times' infamous characterization of Michael Brown - a black teenager shot dead in the street and in broad daylight, over a box of cigarillos, by a police officer with a checkered professional history - as "no angel" (among other declarations). If you can't muster something perhaps at least as critical for an older young man who has nuked a measure of wealth equivalent to about half the GDP of the country where his company was based (or, the total wealth of ~50,000 Americans at the median net worth; or, a few hundred million boxes of cigarillos), well... Maybe you're going easy on him. It's naive to think that affinity is not influencing, if not driving, the way that journalists regard and write about their subjects.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]