2 ms·

But you had Zeke Faux, a specialist, going there, looking at SBF screen and seeing nothing too special too. Blame the "mainstream media" all you want but as lo

by xwolfi 3y ago

But you had Zeke Faux, a specialist, going there, looking at SBF screen and seeing nothing too special too. Blame the "mainstream media" all you want but as long as we refuse (for good reason) to give audit power to journalists, mainstream or specialist, you'll keep reading positive pieces about frauds if they stay hidden purposefully. I'm not sure why you would have wanted to NYT to destroy every company it interviews just for the sake of it. Wouldnt they need proof ? And how do you get them, when they're hidden by a conspiracy ? Plus, the police in the US, Hong Kong and the Bahamas found nothing and waited for Coindesk to publish a leak by CZ, a competitor, to start looking... I say that because at the peak of the crypto fever I couldnt distinguish SBF from, say, the CEO of Kraken, and I suspect it's hindsight convincing you something could have been done.

mejutoco 3y ago
I don't suggest to "destroy" any company, or to say they are guilty of things without proof. The FT did an impressive investigation of Wirecard, for example. There is a difference between destroying a company and making a couple of common sense questions instead of parroting whatever the interviewee wants. Some basic journalistic practices. It is really not so much to ask. EDIT: interviewer/interviewee
- xwolfi 3y ago
  Agreed but we only ask that after the conspiracy was revealed and honestly it's so mindblowingly stupid it's hard to imagine anyone could have thought they used QuickBooks or just thad no accountant. Again you re asking someth that had been done several times: many people did dig a bit deeper and couldnt find the Alameda hole or the real balance sheets, or the parents siphoning millions and all that stuff that took even time for prosecutors to find. The role of the media isnt to uncover fraud I think, it's to give you a chance to expose one if you know one. If nobody was willing to talk, what s a journo gonna do? Carreyrou, a personal hero, had tons of witnesses coming to him for instance.

by xwolfi 3y ago

mejutoco 3y ago

I don't suggest to "destroy" any company, or to say they are guilty of things without proof. The FT did an impressive investigation of Wirecard, for example. There is a difference between destroying a company and making a couple of common sense questions instead of parroting whatever the interviewee wants. Some basic journalistic practices. It is really not so much to ask. EDIT: interviewer/interviewee

xwolfi 3y ago
Agreed but we only ask that after the conspiracy was revealed and honestly it's so mindblowingly stupid it's hard to imagine anyone could have thought they used QuickBooks or just thad no accountant. Again you re asking someth that had been done several times: many people did dig a bit deeper and couldnt find the Alameda hole or the real balance sheets, or the parents siphoning millions and all that stuff that took even time for prosecutors to find. The role of the media isnt to uncover fraud I think, it's to give you a chance to expose one if you know one. If nobody was willing to talk, what s a journo gonna do? Carreyrou, a personal hero, had tons of witnesses coming to him for instance.