> How does NYT feel about interviewing him literally not more than two weeks ago and trying to frame him as a super smart kid making a dumb mistake?
If you're referring to Andrew Ross Sorkin's interview of SBF, you're misreading the larger editorial framing of that interview.
The editorial intent was to get SBF talking and present, in public, evidence of whatever he did or did not do. The motivation of that interview was not to provide a platform for his exculpation.
Consider, for example, Fortune's analysis of that interview, which begins [0]
> Where to begin? In a decade of covering crypto, I’ve seen a lot of
> strange spectacles but nothing quite like Sam Bankman-Fried’s interview
> at the New York Times DealBook Summit—a 45-minute display of delusion
> and sociopathy in which the disgraced FTX founder whined, wheedled, and
> did everything but acknowledge his responsibility for the financial
> crime of the year.
As a journalist you ask tough questions and demands answers.
Stop being a NYT apologist.
Sorkin threw softballs at SBF again and again, accepted answers given without an iota of concern about the bold lies spewed back, profusely thanked SBF for being so generous with his time over and over again as if it's the NYT that somehow stole billions and tried to lie and get away with it.
