They ask about the real estate purchases, they ask about the transfers, they ask about conflicts of interest and criminal liability. How can a live unedited interview with those questions be a puff piece?
It's as if SBF lawyers handed NYT a list of questions to ask and nothing more.
SORKIN: I think the question is whether you supposed to have access to these accounts to begin with. If I worked at a bank and was a bank teller and I decided to leave the bank at the end of the evening and take the cash that I ostensibly had access to, even if I intended to bring it back to the bank later or with even more money to give them back — I still stole that money.
The full transcript is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/01/business/dealbook/sam-ban...
Ignoring that he also donated to Republicans. This is all part of that narrative - substantiated or otherwise.
So instead of people taking a close look at the crypto space and saying "wait, maybe a lot of these other projects are flawed", their anger gets focused on the press and the regulators. It's pretty ridiculous when you think about it -- is the NYTimes really responsible for FTX because the tone of their pieces wasn't sufficiently harsh? I'm skeptical.