This wasn't universally true. See the VICE coverage for example.
The "old" media bought into SBF in exactly the same way it bought into Elizabeth Holmes, presumably for some of the same reasons. They have a strong bias/gravity towards covering "wunderkind" entrepreneurs, and they do "access journalism" with these people. It's more about their personal lives and personalities, because that's the story that always sells.
In addition, most outlets (including the NYT) have had a massive blind spot into how shady everything in the crypto space really is. They've long bought the bullshit, and many of their "crypto reporters" are unquestioning crypto bros who basically are industry mouthpieces rather than real journalists. So in a sense they're actually complicit in all the scams and losses, because they've boosted the fiction that "crypto" is somehow legitimate.
One has to hope that a corner has finally turned here, and SBF's highly visible fall will cause these "old" outlets to start doing actual real journalism on the whole "industry" rather than just fluff pieces and boosterism.
I went through a few examples people brought up of journalists supposedly treating Bankman-Fried kindly the other day[1]. When I read what journalists were actually saying, they were quite negative about Bankman-Fried (saying he was "betraying his clients" or saying FTX "didn’t crumble due to bad luck, but what now appears to be unsustainable layers of deception").
The crypto community seems to be trying really hard to deflect from the fallout of yet another major crypto scam, and spinning whatever they can to make this seem like this is the fault of establishment non-crypto folks. Remember that just a few days ago people were claiming that Bankman-Fried hadn't been charged because he had paid off U.S. politicians.
I think the issue was there was no pressing follow up to his evasive replies. e.g Sorkin's interview. He was basically allowed to get away with "I didn't knowingly do it."
And if you don't confront them, maybe they'll say even more? It's like the military quote: "never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake."
But If you look at the written coverage at NYT about this, you will realize that in this case it is the former and not the latter. Yes one can argue that it might have been a plan to make him comfortable to talk at the interview - but yeah :).
May be it is too subtle for me.
In effect Sorkin et al interviews has MADE the fraud case for the government. The lies are evidence there was intent to defraud.
I think it was the response to coffeezilla questions that might have him in a bind not the other mainstream journalists.
And sometimes they don't confront them because the media are shills.
> I declined, which obviously in retrospect was the right choice. I told him that I like my Substack just fine and make plenty of money, though he was happy to offer more. But I also told him that given the extent to which we agree on a lot of important issues, I thought it was a lot more valuable to these causes for me to maintain credibility by not accepting any of his money.
Meanwhile the CEO of The Block received a $43M "loan" from SBF[1].
[1] https://www.coindesk.com/podcasts/the-breakdown-with-nlw/sbf...
For the last few months, any time something bad happens with FTX, there are dozens of people who show up complaining that the media went easy on SBF. They most often use the word "puff" or the phrase "puff piece," as if the comments were all written by the same bot farm.
Then when someone calls them out on it, they're suddenly silent. Which makes me agree with you that this is people trying to deflect from the greed at the root of this, trying to portray themselves as victims, and if the big media had just given them some warning, they wouldn't have lost billions of dollars.
It's naive to think that affinity is not influencing, if not driving, the way that journalists regard and write about their subjects.
Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “treated kindly”.
If you’re talking about why he wasn’t arrested yet, it’s obvious because the SEC was building its case, and more so because he was voluntarily going on public forums and publicly admitting increasing levels of guilt.
I never understood the people complaining about why he wasn’t arrested yet. If you’re a prosecutor making a case against someone, why would you stop them from going to the media and publicly boasting about new crimes?
That's not what I meant.
What I meant is that before FTX's implosion, anything you would read, hear, or see about SBF would make it seem as if he actually believed in it!
This is a dumb take. They did not help him delay or evade anything.
One could argue that the old way of journalism needs to be modernized for people who have challenges with context and understanding, like this quote demonstrates. Maybe expand on the concept of trigger warnings that detail things to consider while reading an article. Things that were common knowledge years ago, but seem to have been left in the dust.
interested, source?
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-frie...
I too am interested if anyone has a source that quotes SBF saying that his EA involvement was in any way inauthentic.
In my armhchair opinion, the Illusion of these values is simply a descendant of the feudal concept of Chivalry- it's important to have rules and social norms to establish an in-group of trust, and just as important for the non-elite to know that the elites have their best interest in mind, via "effective altruism"- because the elites are also honest, hard-working people, that got there through their honest hard work. And hey, maybe you can join that club if you invest in the right trustworthy person.
I'll disagree on the point about ability to explain crypto protocols/algorithms. You're either in tech and have a body of knowledge that preps you to understand the details and then you might care about it, or you don't really care about how it works. I don't think there's a group of "elites" of any kind that care too much about you explaining how crypto works.
He wasnt
> until regular individuals in social media started asking
And there is the crux ... until blah blah. "twitter" didnt get them over the line to arrest him. Neither I nor "twitter" can prove a counter factual but it is just a fantasy of people who have read and written too much shitty fan fiction that SBF was never going to get investigated
Sure, he did more full-blown interviews than most people accused of serious crimes, but that's mainly because most of them listen to their lawyers.
If media outlets actually felt particularly kindly disposed towards SBF, they'd be deploying the rhetorical tricks used to defend their favourite politicians (can we trust the investigators? aren't the big losers in FX the sort of financial institutions that were taking calculated risks anyway? and how many of them go to jail when they lose their customers' money? aren't other crypto institutions much worse and what's their role in Alameda's collapse? maybe he actually he could win all that money back, he's made billions before?) not talking about how a one time darling of the Effective Altruism movement and former billionaire is under investigation after his brokerage collapsed after he allegedly transferred its customers' funds to prop up his other failing company. No matter how much biographical detail gets included beforehand, that's not a rosy picture.
It takes any profession time to correct mistakes and get the story right, but the media have the unenviable task of trying to do that very very quickly.
Consider the alternative where the media "slammed" SBF on the daily, it would further discredit crypto and lead to a faster decline in value, therefore it would be harder for financial institutions to efficiently devest from crypto without significant losses.
Sorry, typed this on my phone.
On "meant well", this seems the mirror of attacking one's motive. I noticed that journalists loved to assume the worst of the people they don't like and assume the best of those they do like. Attacking one's motive is really a malicious logical fallacy, as it's practically impossible to defend against such attacks. I really hope journalists focus on what people do instead.
More interesting to me is that the DoJ moved to arrest SBF the night before he was set to testify in Congress. When else have prosecutors moved so aggressively to stop a defendant from making self-incriminating statements? His testimony would be admissible and likely devastating at trial
Incidentally, here's the list of real estate in the Bahamas purchased with FTX funds.[1] Here's the "Albany resort", where most of those properties are.[2]
There was discussion earlier about prosecutors having to prove criminal intent. Did this happen by accident, or were those guys stealing the money for their own benefit? It doesn't matter much what Bankman-Fried has been saying. When the prosecutors have to convince a jury of criminal intent, expect those pictures of the Albany resort to be shown. They didn't buy all those luxury condos with FTX funds by accident.
[1] https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/FTX/Home-DownloadPDF?id1=...
Also, how many lawyers has Sam had now? Who are they? Who have they previously represented?
There's more to the story.
Particularly the last. Elites love to help people, unlike common folks who are too selfish to fall for a con like this? That's the opposite of the usual stereotype.
1) Don't understand anything about bitcoin 2) Own bitcoin and don't want to do something that would push the price lower
A possible answer that no one ever mentions is that SBF possesses many qualities that are valued and admired in elite circles. Consider:
* SBF attended MIT, an institution that is valued and admired in elite circles.
* At MIT, SBF majored in Physics and Math, two difficult subjects that require hard work, academic rigor, and high intelligence -- all qualities that are valued and admired in elite circles.
* Both of his parents are prominent professors at Stanford, so they are also valued and admired in elite circles. Presumably, over the years they tried to instill in SBF the values and behaviors that are most prized by other members of the elite -- including honesty.
* By all accounts, SBF truly could understand and could explain the distributed consensus protocols and algorithms that enable crypto-assets -- abilities that are valued and admired in elite circles.
* By many accounts (before FTX's implosion), it seemed that SBF actually believed in his own slogan, "effective altruism" -- the kind of inspiring idea that is valued in elite circles.