All the jury-tainting "news" that's fit to print
The New York Times is really jumping the shark on the Sam Bankman-Fried crypto fraud scandal. He keeps feeding them big batches of material intended to influence the outcome of his upcoming trial, and they keep happily aiding and abetting his efforts by publishing them. First it was dirt on his ex-girlfriend, who was in on the various scams. That got him evicted from his parents' basement and thrown into a jail cell. Too bad! They built him his own pickleball court for nothing.
Now the Times is regurgitating his draft tweets. You read that right: his draft tweets. Fifteen thousand words' worth. As if they were somehow newsworthy.
If I were the judge in Crypto Boy's criminal case, there would be some New York Times reporters, editors, and lawyers in my chambers on Monday morning. And they wouldn't be having a good day.
I stopped paying attention to the NYT decades ago. Don’t remember the straw that “broke the camels back”.
ReplyDeleteProtecting their crowd, including Wyden.
ReplyDeleteNo kidding. They definitely don't want to talk about what happened with the stolen campaign contributions to the Democratic Party in Oregon. Only the Republican contributions will be prosecuted. I am not making that up.
DeleteYou were a journalist. What would you say to these NYT reporters if you were a judge?
ReplyDeleteThe NYT is literally the winner in THE case against prior restraint (Pentagon Papers). It’s not the state feeding this stuff to NYT, it’s SBF’s friend he sent it to. If SBF is so stupid (and he sure seems to be) as to keep talking talking talking while staring down the barrel at huge fraud charges, why should the NYT not run it? It’s a hell of a lot more newsworthy than a hell of a lot of what they run as “news.” A guy who has grifted billions who goes on to building his own scaffold and tying his own noose knot is news.
Wouldn’t we have been better off if Maggie Haberman and all those other reporters published what they had to Orange Caligula when they had it? On what grounds should the NYT not run what they get on SBF?
They're not getting anything *on* him. They're getting puff material *from* him, and he loves that they're publishing it. Running it through his "friends" is a thin disguise. If I were an editor at the Times, I'd have the good judgment to ignore it.
DeleteAnd if I were the judge, trying to keep the media circus from wrecking the possibility of a fair trial, I'd politely remind the Times that they are not immune from being held in contempt of court, or from being prosecuted for aiding and abetting obstruction. Just a word of warning. If there's a problem with that, they can take it up with the court of appeals.
A personal contempt has value in a limited social circle which shouldn’t include a judge.
DeleteSo you want a world where judges can decide what the press can run based on whether they think that it taints the jury pool? Where all the powers that be have to do is charge someone and suddenly the press shouldn’t cover it further? Once charges are filed, the newspaper has to start thinking about what a judge might think taints the jury pool? Meanwhile, bloggers can write whatever? It’s a sure recipe for the further disappearance of any real press.
DeleteIf defendants telling their side of the story was a good idea, a lot more defendants would do it. I think we’ve established that SBF is an autistic man child of privilege stuck in arrested development and who is one whole heck of a lot less intelligent than he believes himself to be. It’s his arrogance that makes him ignore his lawyers and keep talking.
DeleteHe will learn to keep his mouth closed once he swims in the jury pool that he peed in.
ReplyDelete