I'm talking about what we have in front of us. You're defending the NYT's article without even having seen it. I can't argue against magical articles that haven't been published yet.
Also, if you think the NYT doesn't 'lie', then how about you read up on their reporting of the Duke lacrosse team case, or their hundreds of others examples of complete disregard to journalistic integrity.
Coinbase isn't perfect. But NYT lies. A lot.
But EVEN if the NYT doesn't lie, you haven't read the article yet.
The NYT is not supposed to 'stick with what they can prove'.
That's definitely not the bar they have or else they wouldn't be able to publish much.
Journalists should be a bit cynical, dig for info. The NYT has more resources than anyone, and should be able to ask around, do some actual blockchain work, interview others.
This story looks like one of the biggest frauds in history, likely because it is, it's the job of the NYT to show at least there's a lot of smoke and put puzzle pieces together (obviously with context), they are not a formal judiciary.
There are so, so many crazy parts of this story that were not addressed it reeks of something awry. For example the co-CEO. There's almost nothing about this guy, as though he does not exist. That's a huge mystery and it's only one small artifact of the story.
This article raises as much suspicion as it clears up.
The New York times is not a professional news org. They do not, in fact, fact check, get statements, or give their subjects a chance to respond, at least not consistently.
When Nathaniel Popper wrote a hit piece substantially targeting me personally he (and NYT's fact checkers-- if they exist/were-involved at all) diligently avoided having any communication with anyone who could possibly contradict his narrative, including, of course, those he targeted. Not even the classic "email to an unmonitored mailbox 20 minutes before going to print to accompany a 'could not be reached for comment'" so often used in the industry and it isn't like he didn't know how to reach me.
The subsequent apology I got from a times board member was only a small consolation.
My experiences are not dissimilar to others I've talked to that have been the targets of hit pieces in the NYT.
In my view the NYT is a garbage venue that is callously indifferent to the truth at best.
At least coinbase knew this was coming, often NYT targets don't enjoy even that small piece of human decency.
It's pretty insane to me that you think the NYT would ever deliberately print accusations they couldn't prove.
I also think you're massively overstating the role of the NY Times, yes they have resources but they have to cover massive breadth. The NY Times isn't really going to be an expert in every topic, and there are real expert reporters out there who are going to dig in to this for specialist information. In this case there are reporters covering tech and finance - so you're going to see good articles from Levine, and the Odd Lots people, Michael Lewis was literally shadowing SBF for 6 months. Arguably the Odd Lots guys got to this first - basically getting SBF to admit he was running a ponzi in an interview - an admission that made absolutely no difference because everyone kind of knew it was all a scam anyway. If you said to me there's an article about FTX I would be looking for it in Bloomberg or the FT, not the NYT.
1. They are not mentioning that one reason is that a team had transfered regions/states, and that might be the main cause of attrition on that team, and not the actual treatment.
2. In a previous article, NYT failed to mention at all that Coinbase had provided severance of 6 months (which is very generous). NYT made it seems as these employees were forced out the company and lelft out in the streets
a) Omitting key details, is a very malicious type of journalism, and NY Times has been doing that for a while.
b) Also, NYTimes has been engaging in a smearing campaign against tech, since 2012, when they realized that new tech media companies are their direct competitor, and their old business is about to be disrupted. Again, this is just a journal doing a smear campaign against their direct competitors...
c) Most news organizations have been ramping up 'click-bait' type of stories to build narratives that are as controversial as possible, as it is good for their viewership stats, and ultimately their wallets.
If you believe the 'follow the money' mantra, it is very reasonable to believe that NY Times is very biased, and untrustworthy. Someone might say it is cynical, but the fact that they are omitting details, makes them very suspect in their motivations.
Please illuminate me. I may be wrong, but I certainly wasn't being dishonest. The fact that you leaped straight to that conclusion doesn't help convince me that you have a particularly well-grounded belief in the NYT's dishonesty, either.
I am not disputing that the NYPost is disreputable, do I need to say this more? I am saying the deservedly poor reputation of the NYPost is irrelevant in this case because the reported facts are easy to independently verify. The reputation of a newspaper counts when their reputation is what we must rely on, which is not the case here.
The NYPost's source is a public filing linked elsewhere in this discussion. If you think the NYPost has lied, point out the lie. If you think they left something important out, point it out. I'm guessing you cannot do either.
The NYT is such garbage these days. Some speculators lost money to other speculators. That's how speculation works. Nobody is being 'preyed' upon. This article is unbelievably disingenuous.
Wouldn't it be easy for you to post an example of the article being wrong, then? Otherwise it looks like you have a personal agenda against the new york times.
This is a factual claim, but your response is not to say that the NYT has the facts wrong, but instead to imply they shouldn't report on facts and imply they have a secret agenda for doing so.
I'm not biased towards the NYT, what I'm saying is that what the NYT is doing is a different thing from this article. The NYT is an interview with SBF, interspersed with the story of what happened, and the NYT will stick to what it can actually prove. You're pissed the NYT is biased towards SBF but it's not - it's an literally an interview with SBF, you're not meant to take what SBF is saying in there uncritically.
Whereas this article has a tonne of speculation (none of the stuff about market making has fact behind it, it's speculation based on a handful of tweets) and a heavy reliance on sources that are at best questionable. The stuff about the rogue algo is entirely without evidence, and the stuff about drug taking, whilst lurid, could be entirely tangential to why the company actually collapsed. The NYT isn't going to quote random anonymous users on an EA forum claiming to be ex-employees.
Also, if you think the NYT doesn't 'lie', then how about you read up on their reporting of the Duke lacrosse team case, or their hundreds of others examples of complete disregard to journalistic integrity.
Coinbase isn't perfect. But NYT lies. A lot.
But EVEN if the NYT doesn't lie, you haven't read the article yet.
reply