"Naaaah!"
Posted on 06/02/2023 12:46:13 PM PDT by nickcarraway
A profile published last month in the New York Times on disgraced Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, who started her 11-year prison sentence Tuesday after defrauding investors with an ineffective blood-testing product, reportedly ignited an internal debate that paralleled one that occurred in the Twitter court of public opinion.
According to a Vanity Fair report Wednesday, writers at the paper of record were questioned about the profile and how it came to be during a fraught all-hands meeting held the day that Holmes’ stint in federal prison started.
In the profile, Times writer-at-large Amy Chozick seems sympathetic toward her subject to the point of total flattery — as many critics pointed out. She admitted that she got “rolled” by her subject while describing her as “modest but mesmerizing” and “gentle and charismatic, in a quiet way” between anecdotes about roaming the San Diego Zoo with Holmes’ family and drinking “antioxidant smoothies,” the “Bonnie and Clyde”-esque details of her romance with California hotel heir Billy Evans and, of course, the events leading up to Holmes' conviction.
Ellen Pollock, the Times’ business editor (who serves as a character in the Holmes profile), defended the write-up and reportedly said she didn’t “give a —” about the backlash when asked about the controversy. Pollock all but confirmed the sentiment in an email to Vanity Fair writer Charlotte Klein, saying that her mother would be “appalled to hear that I cursed in public.”
Others apparently pointed out the contradiction of the Times announcing it hired John Carreyrou, the reporter who exposed Theranos’ failures for the Wall Street Journal, just months before the softball profile was reported. (The announcement of Carreyrou’s hire, apparently, was also delayed to ensure that Holmes would talk to Chozick.)
Carreyrou, as well as star Times correspondent Erin Griffith, both read the piece,
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Further proof that we have propagandists, not journalists.
It was obvious that this scam was fraudulent from the very beginning. Anyone who fell for it had to have been an idiot. I think Holmes only managed to get as far as she did because of the connections she had. These days connections counts way more than merit.
Imagine how much hassle these clowns could avoid if they just took the radical step of just reporting the facts and then letting the readers decide what to think about them.
I didn’t understand any of it and don’t care at all.
She had several pentagon bigwigs including General Mattis connected to her. Big shots who obviously never heard of the adage if it’s too good to be true - It its not true!
these so-called journalists are actually illustrating for us why and how Elizabeth Holmes created and built her fraud to the huge debacle it was...it could never happen without the intelligence-free atmosphere created by idiot, woke journalists
Maybe.
I suspect there were less-than-Biblical thoughts fueling many guy supporters.
A woman who was viewed by society as less-than-attractive would have had fewer supporters out of the box.
"Pretty women" tend to get a pass. "Ugly women" tend to have to work harder.
It's a real thing.
This was straightforward—she was a sociopath who conned the mass media as well as a long list of prominent people and investors who should have known better.
They were so busy crowing about “breaking the glass ceiling” that they couldn’t see the lies upon lies upon lies that she was spewing.
This was another “get woke go broke” story to add to the long list.
I believe it’s called the “Aristocracy of Pull,” the title of a chapter in Atlas Shrugged.
“I think Holmes only managed to get as far as she did because of the connections she had.”
No. She was good looking and had a vagina. Her story supported the narrative the establishment wanted. Women can achieve in STEM fields and business.
"Naaaah!"
Yeah there was that too.
Ignorance and apathy! That’s not a criticism in this case. I feel the same way.
This case is important for many reasons—one is that it is an example of the health care “experts” lying and lying and lying....
Thanks, great column.
Thank you for the tip. That reminded me, that a major hub of the “Aristocracy of Pull,” is at the National Bureau of Economic Research - NBER:
Don’t hold me to this, but methinks Amy Chozick is a lesbian.
5.56mm
More like Amy Chokzondick.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.