I am generally curious what your position is here? You seem to be arguing the NYT article is not a fluff piece but then with this comment you admit its not investigative journalism but rather a fluff piece? I don't understand.

Right. So it was accurately described by the author of the linked article as 'a poorly researched fluff piece'.

So an entertainment piece, as mentioned?

I can't see the article because of the login, but what does the piece achieve? Does the interview ask Sam hard questions?