Yeah. People seem to be bizarrely fixated on the bits of stories where they mention what SBF was famous for and quote his excuses and don't state that he's definitely guilty of this crime that we were waiting to see if he'd be charged with, and miss the point that the headline is that the guy is accused of a serious crime and articles on famous people accused of crimes usually mention what they're famous for even if that's good, quote a denial/excuse if there is one and don't announce what they're guilty of before they've even been charged with anything.

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.