2 ms·
I sat down and read the NYT article. It's not that glamorous for SBF--at best, it paints him as someone in way over his head, but I'm not sure that's a fair cha
by jcranmer 4y ago
I sat down and read the NYT article. It's not that glamorous for SBF--at best, it paints him as someone in way over his head, but I'm not sure that's a fair characterization. It's somewhat humanizing, but largely in a "what is the CEO thinking as their business falls to ash around them?"--it intersperses the interview with notes about how the company was probably lying at times, and the most contentious questions are summarized as "interviewee doesn't want to talk about them." I wouldn't characterize it as a puff piece, but I think the complaints are largely that people wanted it to be a thorough evisceration of Crypto Enemy Number One.
- hodgesrm 4y agoThis is a good point. Journalists get dinged for trying to pull out the truth. Andrew Ross Sorkin's interview with SBF seems like a case in point.