>I love how there's endless attempts to portray him as a sinister, self-interested actor.

I've found most people I talk to do not think he's sinister at all. I (and may others) think he's one of the best non-fiction writers of our time. But for this particular book, he seemed in over his head, which made him susceptible to believing misinformation or at least misinterpreting the significance of some information he came across. I still think he's great, and I'm sure I will devour his future books with as pleasure as I did with Liar's Poker and Moneyball.