I obviously can’t speak for everyone, but personally, I am much more interested in what he has to say now than I was pre-collapse.
Different story for the average listener, who will be listening to most interactions with an open mind and susceptible to whichever person tends to be more charming or persuasive.
His lawyers probably reckoned he was talking way too much, was too much of a liability and dropped him immediately.
The real question is he keeps receiving positive media coverage? They keep trying to frame him as, just a "dumb kid and his friends" that "accidentally misplaced billions" - when in fact, it is pretty obvious he planned most of it, by how his complex corporate structure was and the constant deleting of evidence every step of the way.
Not to mention how he gave himself over a billion of personal loans and spending millions on bribes towards the end for hopes of political protection when he knew he was running out of rope to hide his scam.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-sit-in-th...
https://www.axios.com/2022/11/16/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-incom...
I’m seeing plenty of critical coverage. Are you really not seeing that?
He got a degree from MIT, did a year at Jane Street, but is unable to keep basic financial records??? This doesn't make sense to me, and seems like obvious fraud.
I guess you're suggesting the NYT shouldn't let him speak, to protect us from ourselves? That's a startling position.
They are selecting very few people to speak and rejecting huge amounts of other people.
But the other real thing is how you introduce the speaker. What do you say about the speaker in your materials, whether you promote him as trustworthy or not.
Please don't take this personally, but I generally have no interest in watching random people speak. They know their audience.
On the other hand, if they could secure an interview with Adolf Hitler himself, I would watch. Interest does not mean endorsement.
That does depend on how you introduce him and what questions you ask. It does matter on whether when he says lies about Jews for example in that interview, you let them stand unopposed. If you use positive or euphemisms ridden introduction, then you are endorsing actually. "The next speaker is smart awesome guy who has extensive experience in leading a crypto fund".
> if they could secure an interview with Adolf Hitler himself,
His speeches are no secret. If you invite Hitler, introduce him nicely and he then go about Jewish danger, they you are in fact helping him promote genocide. And that guy would not go for interview where he be in any danger of not dominating tone (he was good at popular politics).
But seriously, why is it that nazi speech is always the most important one? I dont see anyone going "interview with Usama Bin Ladin, lets have Pol Pot speaking, lets have Stalin speaking, we should add communists/anarchists/ISIS into the mix".
And... I have watched a few of Hitler's speeches? And somehow I'm still not a Nazi. Nor have I, to my knowledge, promoted genocide.
Give humans more credit. They're not stupid.
That doesn't matter. Who cares how the public sees him? All that's going to matter is how a jury sees him shortly. And the prosecution will be able to present evidence.
In the meantime, let him keep speaking on the record and admitting to things. And providing a show for those of use who are paying attention.
Besides, I'm not sure how many "average listeners" are going to be tuning into the NYT event. I assume it's mostly people who have been following the story.
I won't believe this guy is actually going to prison until they slam the iron bars closed behind him.
As said earlier he has bribed the right big fish. But ignoring angry medium fish can be a problem. Also those might not be bribes. It might be a way to launder money into campaign contributions. Not that you really need that in the US now.
The guy is going to jail. If you want to make a bet on it, I'm willing to do so.