It's not about getting it reported exactly like I want.

Don't you think it is an interesting question to ask yourself, "why they report it like that?".

"Avoiding libel" doesn't cut it, there's other ways of avoiding libel that don't look like a love letter.

Why? Why is it in the reporter's interest to protect this guy? That is the interesting question. I don't need to guess at why reporting on Ukraine or Trump is the way it is, it's pretty clear.

But with this guy? Why?

Reporting that “this is the worst mismanaged company I’ve seen” from the enron guy doesn’t seem like a love letter to me.

Are you looking for opinion or journalism? Ethical journalists aren’t going to say “this is a ponzi scheme and this guy stole money” because that’s not what any primary source is saying. It’s clear that’s what’s happened to anyone reading the articles written.

Has NYT revealed any facts about this stuff?

First takes on shady accounting practices, details on co-living of executives, some of the troubles with the parents and more information on his warrant and arrest. But they didn't say "fraud" so many people were happy to never read the articles and criticize while also just reading what their favorite crypto influencers took away from reading the NYT reporting.

I'm shocked at how many articles about the FTX collapse still refer to SBF as some sort of philanthropist. You don't need to call him a scammer, but could you at least stop pretending he's a net positive on the world?