You're almost there! Now look back at the title: "Ellison was bound for success. Then she got into crypto" and realize it's wrapped in an exonerating tone.
The title endorses a narrative. Yes, some sentences walk it back a little, but the bell was clearly rung. Again, the whole issue of framing is that you can do a lot via emphasis: put the damning stuff in footnotes and puff in the headlines.
It endorses a timeline: she was promising, then she went into crypto and no longer is. That's accurate.
They could say she's a fraudster, but that's not really what this story is talking about. It's how she got to the point that she did fraud. (There are also questions of libel.)
>It endorses a timeline: she was promising, then she went into crypto and no longer is. That's accurate.
You seem to be almost deliberately missing the point that the facts can be correct but presented to favor a false narrative. I've said that three times now, and yet you keep re-asserting that the facts are technically correct, as if that's some vindication of your point.
If that's genuinely what you believe, I'm happy to tell your co-workers that you "managed to not come to work drunk today". It's accurate, right?
No, because it carries a false implication. I'm failing to see that here for anyone who hasn't come to their conclusion ex ante. There seems to be a generalized dislike for anyone covering anything related to FTX without screaming that it was a fraud. We know it was a fraud. The people who don't think it's a fraud will never be convinced otherwise.
This is not a friendly piece. There is nothing exonerating in it. And after some flattery it concedes her guilt.
The meta-story appears to be people trying to blame the media for another fraud in crypto.