Don't see an issue with that here, she was present in the courtroom so the personal narrative is warranted, and I don't see that got in the way at all. Adds a human element. With that being said, you can copy and paste the article in ChatGPT and have it render the way you want. What a time to be alive!

> so the personal narrative is warranted, and I don't see that got in the way at all.

I would actually like to know what SBF said on the stand that caused the reactions in the gallery/jury and not the author's personal reaction.

ChatGPT can't do that because the author left out information.

That information is literally the headline of the piece and the meat of the article.

Perhaps you want the full transcript.

There are very few direct quotes from SBF in the piece. In fact there are very few direct quotes from the prosecutor, the author preferring to summarise them and leaving us to guess as to how close they got.

For example,

> To each of those questions, Bankman-Fried replied, “No, but I might have.”

> And then Sassoon played a clip from FTX’s official podcast. You are never going to guess what he said on the pod.

I'm not here to guess. Give us a direct quote. (The questions were also not quoted, so they don't provide a direct quote either).

It's really not, did we read the same article? There wasn't much "meat" to the article at all and only a sprinkling of quotes

The author clearly hates SBF, which is fair, but got in the way of the facts. I don't care that they personally dislike him and it takes away from the story but more importantly makes the piece much less trustworthy.

meh, I liked it. I lol'd at this part

> Still, he hadn’t made any of those statements under legal oath, had he? Well… that remained true until we reached his Congressional testimony. Bankman-Fried read aloud testimony he’d submitted to Congress: that trading platforms’ obligations included maintaining sufficient liquid assets that customers could withdraw on request. That platforms should ensure appropriate bookkeeping to prevent misuse of customer assets. Ensuring appropriate management of risks. Avoiding conflicts of interest.

> Sassoon immediately followed this with direct messages Bankman-Fried had sent to Kelsey Piper, in which he said this was all just public relations, and “fuck regulators.”

> At this point, my notes simply read “Jesus fucking Christ” in all caps.

It'd be one thing if the flowery writing were actually good, but the images don't even make sense.

    as prosecutor Danielle Sassoon went through a brutal line of questioning like a hot buzzsaw through a butter cow

Shouldn't the brutal line of questioning be the buzzsaw, and SBF the butter?

It’s strange how the writer seems to excuse themselves the cliche of saying “like a hot knife through butter” by jazzing it up. “A hot buzzsaw through a butter cow” would just make a huge mess everywhere, not get to the heart of the issue quickly. Mixing metaphors isn’t good writing, and getting them wrong makes for very poor style, but the writer (even though I enjoyed this article) seems to consider themselves a great stylist despite not thinking about the implications of this metaphoric language.

Oh damn, that's Lyttle Lytton material right there. So bad it comes back around and becomes good.

It's ambiguous, but I read it as "the prosecutor effortlessly heaped a brutal line of questioning upon the defendant," or something to that effect.

Typically bandsaws are used to process cows anyways, so it makes even less sense.

I think it's this type of butter cow being referenced

https://www.iowastatefair.org/about/butter-cow

Surely there’s a lot of competition and rush to publish news on this trial. Changing around the metaphors might not be the highest priority of any editors.

So don’t change it around. Just reject the metaphor usage entirely.

“If you don’t understand metaphors, please, just don’t use them.”

I'd say that it's rather used as a device for underscoring how important the previous passage was, skimming an article it breaks up the monotonity of recounting so that the reader gets a slight pause to reflect on why the break is there and connect it to the obvious lie just presented before.

> but I wish

> I do not care

Stop trying to make the author's article about yourself

Unlike the author I am not reporting on a matter of fact. I am giving my opinion in a web forum.

> nowadays

New Journalism has been around since the 1960s at least, with Norman Mailer's work. The term originates from Tom Wolfe, around 1972/1973 https://nymag.com/article/tom-wolfe-birth-of-new-journalism-..., but Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Jimmy Breslin said there was nothing "new" about the style, that story-telling had been around as long as language.

I get it: it's not to everyone's taste. That doesn't mean it's not a legitimate and respected form of journalism. There are plenty of sources out there that stick to the "just the facts" form of writing. Whether or not that's more "real story" is debatable.

Flowery #millenial bullshit is the verges style, and for the not-so-flowery bullshit that SBF and friends did with other peoples money, the snark is welcome.

It's the written equivalent of a reaction video/whatever that thing is where people post videos of themselves watching other videos.