Did Sam Bankman-Fried’s Millions Buy the Media’s Loyalty?

Indeed, SBF is still benefitting from some kinder-than-expected coverage from the mainstream media, even in the wake of the revelations about his fraudulent activities and even from outlets that did not receive his largesse. The New York Times‘ report on this disaster uses soft, passive language to disguise blame at every turn. This is the outlet that treats nearly every development in the tech sector as an existential threat to democracy, yet its summation lets SBF write his own verdict. Expanded too fast? Failed to see warning signs? He defrauded people out of millions of dollars! The empire didn’t collapse of its own accord; it collapsed because its foundations were fraudulent.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post‘s reporting on this subject has centered on SBF’s “pandemic prevention” spending. “Before FTX collapse, founder poured millions into pandemic prevention,” writes the paper. “Most of those initiatives have come to a sudden halt.”

Neither The New York Times nor The Washington Post were among SBF’s beneficiaries, but it is striking how gingerly they have treated him thus far. These are both outlets that have sounded quasi-apocalyptic notes about how tech companies like Facebook and Twitter are ruining journalism, promoting misinformation, and undermining democracy. One hopes they wouldn’t treat Bankman-Fried with kid gloves out of admiration for his philanthropy.

via reason.com