From: allin
The role and integrity of media, particularly its biases and influence on public perception, have become a significant topic of discussion. Critics argue that mainstream media often reflects its own narratives and prior beliefs, leading to a loss of trust and a perceived lack of accountability [07:59:01]. This phenomenon is highlighted through the FTX controversy and historical political coverage.
Media Treatment of Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) and FTX
Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), the founder of FTX, received notably gentle media coverage following the FTX collapse [01:38:00]. Initially, Andrew Sorkin at DealBook provided him with “softball” questions [01:17:01]. The New York Times continued to “embarrass themselves” by handling SBF with “kid gloves” [01:37:05], even publishing what was described as more of a “puff piece” than a critical article [01:42:04]. One headline from the New York Times stated that SBF was “neither a Visionary nor a criminal mastermind” but “a human who made the same poor choice that generations of money managers have made before him” [01:44:31].
George Stephanopoulos, however, “fricasseed and filleted” SBF on Good Morning America [01:49:03], repeatedly questioning him on how Alameda took user accounts despite FTX’s terms of service prohibiting it [02:30:04].
Perceived Reasons for Lenient Coverage
It has been suggested that SBF’s background contributed to the lenient media treatment [08:07:01]. He attended elite private schools and MIT, and his parents teach governance at Stanford, placing him within the “establishment of the progressive left” [08:10:04]. His substantial political donations and alignment with “effective altruism” also resonated with mainstream media, leading them to embrace him [08:30:01]. This perspective suggests that the media “refused to re-underwrite this kid” because doing so would mean admitting they “missed it and they got it wrong” [09:14:00].
[!WARNING|Lack of Accountability] Critics argue that the media’s failure to hold SBF accountable reflects a broader issue within institutions, where there is a lack of accountability when “experts” or “elites” make mistakes [10:59:01].
Comparison to Donald Trump’s Media Coverage
A stark contrast is drawn between SBF’s media treatment and that of Donald Trump. In 2016, Trump was perceived to have “violated every single establishment bias” of “left Progressive journalist Elites” [07:04:02]. As a result, the media “attacked attacked attacked attack attacked” him [07:14:08]. Even after the election results, which suggested their coverage was limited, the media allegedly “doubled down” on their narrative instead of self-reflecting [07:47:00]. This is seen as an attempt to “control the narrative” and, by extension, “control Power” [07:59:01].
The Nature of Media Bias and Activism
Shift Towards Activist Journalism
It is posited that a new generation of journalists, particularly since 2016, have become “activist journalists” [47:39:06]. Instead of reporting facts neutrally, they felt an “existential risk” and “picked a side” like cable news channels such as MSNBC and Fox [47:47:00]. This shift is seen as a “deliberate cynical choice” by outlets like the New York Times to gain subscribers, turning journalism into activism [47:58:02].
This phenomenon is captured by journalist Matt Taibbi’s quote: “The story is no longer the boss, instead we sell narrative” [48:42:04].
Impact on Truth and Transparency
When journalists become activists, they are no longer journalists, leading to concerns about the media’s ability to act as the “last stop to make sure that there’s truth and honesty and transparency in society” [10:17:00]. This raises the question of how individuals can learn the truth if media outlets are merely reflecting their own biases [10:24:00].
Case Study: China Protests
A personal anecdote illustrates how media bias can distort understanding of global events. While in the Middle East, a viewer observed contrasting narratives on the China protests across different news channels [53:49:00]:
- CNN framed the protests as a “democratic revolt” aiming to depose Xi Jinping [53:52:00].
- Al Arabia interviewed people on the ground who primarily expressed desires for an end to burdensome PCR tests and more reasonable quarantine restrictions [54:12:00].
- BBC featured a China scholar explaining that the Communist Party has historically supported local-level protests as part of their political system to allow people to feel heard [54:27:00].
This diversity in reporting highlights how different outlets can “fit the data to fit their bias” [55:04:00], projecting desired outcomes (e.g., revolution) rather than reporting the full spectrum of local sentiments [55:06:00].
Regulatory and Investor Failures vs. Media Responsibility
The debate also extends to the shared responsibility of media, regulators, and investors in uncovering and preventing issues like the FTX fraud [24:58:00].
Some argue that regulators failed by being reactive rather than proactive with crypto, and by not providing clear guidance to the crypto community [24:46:00]. It’s noted that SBF was even involved in crafting new regulations while breaking existing ones, suggesting a failure of regulatory oversight [25:37:00].
Others place greater blame on investors and capital allocators who reportedly conducted “zero diligence” and established “zero governance” in companies like FTX and Theranos [41:32:00]. They argue that investors are responsible for due diligence and setting up proper governance, not journalists [41:55:00].
However, a counter-argument emphasizes that the media could have asked harder questions and dug deeper into the connections between Alameda and FTX years prior [22:48:00]. The fact that “randos on Twitter spaces did a better job than Sorkin” [45:31:00] suggests a failure in journalistic due diligence.
The Rise of Independent Media
Amidst the perceived failures and biases of mainstream media, consumers are increasingly seeking out “independent voices” through platforms like Substack, call-in shows, and podcasts [48:52:00]. This shift is compared to disruptions seen in other creative industries (e.g., music, film), where independent artists and producers have gained prominence [50:31:00].
Individuals with expertise, like those in science or markets, are becoming “speakers of their truth” and directly communicating with audiences through platforms like Twitter and YouTube [51:36:00]. This “going direct” model allows for the communication of expertise and bypasses the perceived unreliability and bias of traditional media [52:51:00]. This is exemplified by athletes like Draymond Green and JJ Redick, who have “totally changed the game” by creating their own content [53:23:00].
[!INFO|Consumer Responsibility] It is suggested that consumers must become “extremely literate” and “do their own search for truth” rather than blindly trusting any single source, including traditional news outlets or even independent podcasts [50:03:00].