You've made a rather unfair comment in my opinion. It is a personal perspective short, offering a view of a part of the FTX fallout which people may not have thought about.
I don't disagree with you in general, but this specific fallout is not due to them being the innocent parents of a guilty son. Their reputation was mostly harmed because of their invovlement in FTX and how they benefited from it, how they reacted after the collapse and how this is so antithetical to their image as ethical role models of society. I think this comment from the same article gives much more info
https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/2/23944485/sam-bankman-frie...
Let me give you my reasoning. The piece is largely based on assumptions. We do not know what went on behind the curtains. The chance of him not consulting his parents (who are well versed in law) is very slim. The chance of his parents not consulting other lawyers to get a good grip on the situation: also very slim.
Therefore the idea of him deliberately bringing down his parents by choosing to not plead guilty seems out of this world.
Additionally, it is just too hypocritical imho. Claiming he is bringing down his parents while bringing down his parents.
But that’s the point. He did consult his parents, extensively. They took money from FTX, through Sam. They bought a mansion in the Bahamas and filled it with nice furniture, ultimately from customer deposits.
We know all of this from evidence which withstood the scrutiny and burden of proof in court. What part is hypothetical?