3 ms·

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. T

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.