4 ms·

> Mainstream media tends to give in to these threats, Not sure which parts of the mainstream media you're referring to but certainly not traditional (legacy?)

> Mainstream media tends to give in to these threats, Not sure which parts of the mainstream media you're referring to but certainly not traditional (legacy?) print media like NYT/WaPo. Maybe just maybe it's not interesting to big outlets because influencers like Paul have less influence overall than is apparent to the subcultures who follow them. NYT on Paul [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/27/technology/crypto-influencers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/27/technology/crypto-influen...

_fat_santa 4y ago
The difference is breaking the story vs reporting on it after it has been broken. Had Coffee not put out his video series, NYT would have likely not been compelled to write a piece about it
- jrumbut 4y ago
  I haven't followed this but I will take anyone's word for it that Coffee did break the story and cause the NYT to take notice, and that was great work. I think the objection is to the image of major media outlets living in fear of the Paul brothers. They regularly publish negative stories on people with much better lawyers, more influence, and scarier extralegal muscle.
  - hitekker 4y ago
    Perhaps the risk/benefit ratio explains it better. The NYTimes could break a story that could undermine future access to an influential group of elites and that could be not factual and invite pesky questions, in exchange for a potentially, considerable boost in reputation. Or they could play it safe, wait for someone else to take the plunge, and then follow after, with a negligible increase in their reputation. When an organization has already taken on considerable risk on multiple fronts, they become much more conservative. I'd wager it's not fear of the Paul Brothers, it's a limited appetite for risk. Also, mitigating risk since it takes time to investigate a signal and turn it into a story; which the NYTimes seemed content to offload onto Coffee.
    - donohoe 4y ago
      I doubt that. I worked at the NYT for 8 years (not on editorial side) and that’s not how they think. Also I think the legal department would very much disagree with you. I also worked at The New Yorker. They have their own legal counsel and are not risk adverse in the least.
  - throwayyy479087 4y ago
    Maybe they once did, but no longer. If they did, they’d cover the laptop story or the sketchiness with Burisma. Those are conveniently ignored for articles about diversity in knitting communities [0]. Journalism is dead outside of a few remaining gumshoes. 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/style/ravelry-knitting-ban-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/style/ravelry-knitting-ba...
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  He didn't question that they weren't lazy, just that they gave in to threats.
ViViDboarder 4y ago
Exactly. Big pint media companies like those you mentioned and New Yorker put out plenty of articles in spite of legal threats. They have legal teams that can tell them if the threats are founded or not and generally have a good track record of defending their positions. What someone other than these media groups may do is make a “bold claim” that may be true but not demonstrably so. Something like that may shy a big company away from casting the first stone and instead to report on someone else’s claim as an allegation.
eloff 4y ago
The mainstream media has been pretty soft on SBF. Maybe because they saw him as one of their own?
MomoXenosaga 4y ago
Could be an age gap. It's mostly dumb kids that get scammed and newspapers target older people. It's completely possible to live outside the crypto bubble- thank god.

_fat_santa 4y ago

The difference is breaking the story vs reporting on it after it has been broken. Had Coffee not put out his video series, NYT would have likely not been compelled to write a piece about it

jrumbut 4y ago
I haven't followed this but I will take anyone's word for it that Coffee did break the story and cause the NYT to take notice, and that was great work. I think the objection is to the image of major media outlets living in fear of the Paul brothers. They regularly publish negative stories on people with much better lawyers, more influence, and scarier extralegal muscle.
- hitekker 4y ago
  Perhaps the risk/benefit ratio explains it better. The NYTimes could break a story that could undermine future access to an influential group of elites and that could be not factual and invite pesky questions, in exchange for a potentially, considerable boost in reputation. Or they could play it safe, wait for someone else to take the plunge, and then follow after, with a negligible increase in their reputation. When an organization has already taken on considerable risk on multiple fronts, they become much more conservative. I'd wager it's not fear of the Paul Brothers, it's a limited appetite for risk. Also, mitigating risk since it takes time to investigate a signal and turn it into a story; which the NYTimes seemed content to offload onto Coffee.
  - donohoe 4y ago
    I doubt that. I worked at the NYT for 8 years (not on editorial side) and that’s not how they think. Also I think the legal department would very much disagree with you. I also worked at The New Yorker. They have their own legal counsel and are not risk adverse in the least.
- throwayyy479087 4y ago
  Maybe they once did, but no longer. If they did, they’d cover the laptop story or the sketchiness with Burisma. Those are conveniently ignored for articles about diversity in knitting communities [0]. Journalism is dead outside of a few remaining gumshoes. 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/style/ravelry-knitting-ban-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/style/ravelry-knitting-ba...
Sporktacular 4y ago
He didn't question that they weren't lazy, just that they gave in to threats.

ViViDboarder 4y ago

Exactly. Big pint media companies like those you mentioned and New Yorker put out plenty of articles in spite of legal threats. They have legal teams that can tell them if the threats are founded or not and generally have a good track record of defending their positions. What someone other than these media groups may do is make a “bold claim” that may be true but not demonstrably so. Something like that may shy a big company away from casting the first stone and instead to report on someone else’s claim as an allegation.

eloff 4y ago

The mainstream media has been pretty soft on SBF. Maybe because they saw him as one of their own?

MomoXenosaga 4y ago

Could be an age gap. It's mostly dumb kids that get scammed and newspapers target older people. It's completely possible to live outside the crypto bubble- thank god.