Comment by dansquizsoft
2 days ago
Off-topic somewhat, but NYT once tried to convince their readers to call Elizabeth Holmes "Liz" and not send her to jail after her fraud conviction. The implication being that it was a highly paid puff piece. They lost a lot of credibility with me that day.
What the media stay silent on is often worse than what they publish.
Media is materially controlled by the state in each county, some hide it very well.
With all due respect, that's bullshit. Here is the article in question: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/07/business/elizabeth-holmes.... NYT is not "trying to convince their readers to call Elizabeth Holmes "Liz"". If anything, the author is quite clear that it is Elizabeth Holmes trying to convince you that she is just "Liz", and if anything I think the author does quite a good job outlining her serious crimes, and the fact that even people close to her find her to be duplicitous and that she shouldn't be trusted.
I think it's fair to ask whether Holmes would have been presented in such a soft light if she weren't a young, blonde, and still apparently rich by her husband, woman. But I think saying that the NYT is trying to convince their readers not to send her to jail is just a total mischaracterization of that article.
Well I'll be...
I've just read it in full and, while I think / agree it is probably still too generous and soft on her, you are quite right about it.
I'm thinking I must have been caught up in some of the commentary around it at the time it came out (I had recently read Carreyrou's book and had gone down a bit of a rabbit hole about her and Theranos), and when I did see it I read the headline and the first few paragraphs, looked at the image, and then closed the page in disgust.
Reading through the rest of it it does come across very differently, and was an interesting read. Thanks for replying about it.