Don't think people were mad about interviews, in fact there are many questions people expect him to answer. They were mad about puff pieces.
People think he should be punished by being ignored by the larger publications or something. He was still giving Twitter interviews with lots of popular crypto people all the time so I doubt it would have done anything.
> But he would offer only limited details about the central questions swirling around him: whether FTX improperly used billions of dollars of customer funds to prop up a trading firm that he also founded, Alameda Research. The Justice Department and the S.E.C. are examining that relationship.
> Alameda had accumulated a large “margin position” on FTX, essentially meaning it had borrowed funds from the exchange, Mr. Bankman-Fried said. “It was substantially larger than I had thought it was,” he said. “And in fact the downside risk was very significant.” He said the size of the position was in the billions of dollars but declined to provide further details.
> Around the time the crypto market crashed this spring, Ms. Ellison explained, lenders moved to recall those loans, the person familiar with the meeting said. But the funds that Alameda had spent were no longer easily available, so the company used FTX customer funds to make the payments. Besides her and Mr. Bankman-Fried, she said, two other people knew about the arrangement: Mr. Singh and Mr. Wang.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/technology/ftx-sam-bankma...
It was substantially larger than I had thought it was -- whoopsie!
the funds that Alameda had spent were no longer easily available (and why is that, hmmm?) , so the company used FTX customer funds to make the payment -- didnt want to, just rearranging some furniture!
Ha, After typing this I went to double checked my memory of the article. They literally refer to him as a villain in the first paragraph. Even my hyperbole can't stand up.
By contrast imagine your motivation is to remain impartial, to say nothing of critical given your long-standing antagonism of billionaires and crypto, and here you have a billionaire player in crypto. Would you do things like press him on the discovered backdoors, where exactly the money went, illegalities of misappropriation, etc? Or would you simply take hand-waving deflectionary non-answers at face value, let alone publish them? Would you invite him to come speak alongside world leaders at an event you are hosting?
I think this might be the confusion between the two parties in this discussion. When people say 'puff piece', they don't just mean that they're engaged in mindless cheer-leading, but rather that they're taking a turd and instead of reporting on a turd, they're reporting on a diamond in the process of being made, while remaining aware of what the reader is going to see when they look at that 'diamond in the making.'
- No question about commingling funds between FTX and Alameda
- No question about his relationship with Alameda's CEO
- No mention of the tweets he deleted
Covers the first two. They refer to how intermingled they were several times. Its a major point of the article.
"He lived in a five-bedroom penthouse in the Albany resort’s Orchid building, with Ms. Ellison, Mr. Singh, Mr. Wang and six others. Mr. Bankman-Fried and Ms. Ellison were at times romantically involved, two people said." This covers point 3
It didn't mention the deleted tweets though but that's minor compared to everything else. Are we talking about different articles? This is the one I normally see people complaining about from them: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/technology/ftx-sam-bankma...
Despite not being present at the scene of any of the crimes, Manson, a victim of America's "cradle-to-prison pipeline" starting at age 5 when his parents were both incarcerated, and was allegedly raped at a reform school, was convicted on seven charges of first-degree murder. The prosecutors also conceded that Mr. Manson never directly instructed anybody to commit the murders, yet he was sentenced to death.
Manson, who earned a following preaching a unique, persuasive self-made philosophy based partly on the Bible, Dale Carnegie and the Beatles, has remained as perhaps the most popular and controversial criminal in the United States in the 20th Century.