That is to be expected. FTX was funded by influential VCs/PE firms with strong reach into the media, including NYT. Additionally, SBF was a major donor to the NYT-affiliated political establishment. It stands to reason that the paper would write nice things about him.
What a funny position to take. “Somebody else donated to a different group, therefore these events cancel each other out. It is as if nobody made any donations at all.”
Media coverage is a reflection, not a conspiracy. SBF pitched himself as virtuous, so the coverage reflected that. Jesse Powell and Brian Armstrong went the opposite direction (to varying degrees) so of course the coverage of them will focus on the contrarian aspects of their approach. We can, and should, hold the media to a high standard but not all journalism is equal: not all journalism is investigative journalism. Media is mostly just whatever people want to hear. Look at the coverage of Theranos pre-reveal, it was fawning because it was what people wanted to hear.
Is that what people wanted to hear, or what the subjects wanted said?
I don’t think I know anyone who was particularly interested in hearing of theranos being fawned over, though I doubt anyone really minded it (insofar as they don’t mind all the other fawning).
There’s a symbiosis. Elizabeth Holmes was a fantastic story for the time, a self-made billionaire changing the world through healthcare innovations, she was on the front cover of magazines because it was a story people absolutely wanted to hear. Likewise with SBF, he’s this multi-billionaire crypto guy who lives like he’s poor! He wants to do good! He’s deep into effective altruism! That’s interesting to a lot of people. The uncritical platforming of these stories is definitely worth criticism, but I don’t believe there to be a grand conspiracy required for SBF to get a bunch of fawning coverage.
(Specifically picking on the New York Times: they frequently publish puff pieces about all sorts of things, they have a long running column about wealthy people’s weddings. Taking a story that people will find interesting (billionaire drives a Corolla) and telling it with a big leading photo is just what a lot of journalism is. If you read every article in the NYT, the SBF piece is totally believable as par for the course without any motive beyond “it’s a story people will like reading”).
I can't remember a time in which news media hasn't just been entertainment in this regard.
The Kraken co-founder having certain political views, or SBF and his mates being some sort of unattractive orgy-clique, or whatever else, is like some sort of Hello magazine gossip nonsense.
If I were a journalist I'd be focusing on things that allow people to improve their lives. Should I invest in XYZ (actual pros and cons), is it safe or unsafe for me to drive a car, what do the elections mean for me, etc etc.
In this specific case it would have been really easy and simple to have articles that describe how to avoid being caught up in stuff like this, with the whole gamut of advice (ranging from "just don't use it, why risk it bro" to "transact peer to peer only" to "only keep small amounts at exchanges" or whatever else).
Instead it feels as if many publications just like to spout opinionated nonsense about whatever. It's bizarre. You don't generally go into journalism for the money, so then what's the point in giving up your ideals and just writing total crap? A complete waste of time.
An intentionally biased piece of reporting meant specifically to portray a person/group/movement under a positive light. The opposite is called a “hit piece.”
