That is exactly the problem with the narrative. It is portraying her as the victim. As if she wasn't one of the chief architects of it all.
Could you cite where? I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm simply not seeing it.
The article readily admits "Ellison told Alameda employees in a video call that she knew FTX sent customer funds to Alameda, and that her company used the money to cover its liabilities." She is called out as Alameda's "sole leader." And it ends with a "quip Ellison made" about crypto being "mostly scams and memes when you get down to it."
Sure, Ellison is portrayed sympathetically at the start. But the conclusion is damning. And nowhere do I see her cast as a victim. We don't need to embargo empathy the moment someone commits a crime.
I suppose we're reading nuance differently. Madoff was an accomplished financier and chair of the NYSE. His reputation was ruined by the Ponzi scheme. Sure, it's a passive voice. But that's far from exonerating.
Similar to how someone can ask why a murderer wound up murdering, identifying elements from their childhood, et cetera, that explain and maybe even make them sympathetic, all without exonerating them. (In that case, I would argue there is valid victimhood in the perpetrator's story. That doesn't make them less guilty. And I haven't seen any claims of victimhood in Ellison's case, as we did in e.g. Holmes's.)
The accumulation of all those “not exonerating but friendly” pieces is what makes it a positive framing.
Something can be technically true but selected and framed to favor a false narrative. This is Journalism 101, or even high school English class, and you may have forgotten an important lesson from it.
This is not a friendly piece. There is nothing exonerating in it. And after some flattery it concedes her guilt.
The meta-story appears to be people trying to blame the media for another fraud in crypto.
You're almost there! Now look back at the title: "Ellison was bound for success. Then she got into crypto" and realize it's wrapped in an exonerating tone.
The title endorses a narrative. Yes, some sentences walk it back a little, but the bell was clearly rung. Again, the whole issue of framing is that you can do a lot via emphasis: put the damning stuff in footnotes and puff in the headlines.
It endorses a timeline: she was promising, then she went into crypto and no longer is. That's accurate.
They could say she's a fraudster, but that's not really what this story is talking about. It's how she got to the point that she did fraud. (There are also questions of libel.)
>It endorses a timeline: she was promising, then she went into crypto and no longer is. That's accurate.
You seem to be almost deliberately missing the point that the facts can be correct but presented to favor a false narrative. I've said that three times now, and yet you keep re-asserting that the facts are technically correct, as if that's some vindication of your point.
If that's genuinely what you believe, I'm happy to tell your co-workers that you "managed to not come to work drunk today". It's accurate, right?
No, because it carries a false implication. I'm failing to see that here for anyone who hasn't come to their conclusion ex ante. There seems to be a generalized dislike for anyone covering anything related to FTX without screaming that it was a fraud. We know it was a fraud. The people who don't think it's a fraud will never be convinced otherwise.
IOW, exactly the criticism everyone is making about the article's framing of Ellison's history. We're back to square one.
Bad settings make good people do bad things.
Crypto made her and sbf make many small dumb decisions which added up to a huge dumb decision.
He had the best setting imaginable but still managed to do bad things. Crypto "made" him do do bad things in the same way a deer gun makes one guy point it at a store clerk while others are just using it to feed his family some venison or wild hog.