4 ms·

>> 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

• 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.