111–120 of 140 posts
I have to wonder why the board of directors didn't, you know, direct. In an ideal world this would damage their reputation as directors with future companies. But not today.
I can't help but notice that Ms Holmes is now wearing a hair loose and a shirt. Having only ever seen her with hair tied and black turtle necks, I'm wondering if this is an attempt at softening her image in the midst of a deluge of bad publicity. Not an ad hominem or personal attack, purely curiosity.
I hope similar attention is paid to men's wardrobe choices next time a corporate scandal article involving a male CEO is posted to HN.
So when men, or women, change their appearance in dress, its generally considered a "communication" of some sort. Sometimes its obvious like the difference between dress uniforms and fatigues in the service, and sometimes less so.
It's pretty clear that Theranos is under fire and I agree with the GP that the change in garb and styling of the CEO was part of the message she was trying to communicate. Without specific guidance on that, we are left to speculate.
thoroughly disappointed in the Shriver interview, didn't ask any hard questions, didn't redirect after her answers, didn't really seem like she was at all fully informed about Theranos now if John Carreyrou had been conducting the interview, that would be another thing but I get the feeling that he would never be granted an interview simply because he is much more qualified in terms of competency in Theranos and its…
It makes one suspicious, to the say the least, to see someone from a politically well-connected family like Shriver interview someone similarly well-connected like Holmes. The odds are high that they know each other and have reasons to scratch each others' backs.
Let's hope Theranos acts as a warning to VCs, and not as an indication of things to come…
thoroughly disappointed in the Shriver interview, didn't ask any hard questions, didn't redirect after her answers, didn't really seem like she was at all fully informed about Theranos now if John Carreyrou had been conducting the interview, that would be another thing but I get the feeling that he would never be granted an interview simply because he is much more qualified in terms of competency in Theranos and its…
When the Chicago Tribune posted an article on how they started a lawsuit for Rahm's email/text records, I almost immediately called them to tell them about the lawsuit I'd filed for his phone records about a month prior after a year long battle with FOIA/IL's Attorney General.
You'd think the person writing the article would have cared about the subject. Nope. He was just doing his job. He forwarded me to the person who did the research/foia. Left a voicemail, sent him emails.. nothin'. No response.
I then called the journalist from the reader who did the red light camera work to see if they would be interested in it. The guy was completely turned off by the fact that the answer to his, "What's making you do this?" was more or less, "It's the principal of the entire matter." and ended the call about 20 seconds later. Bah humbug, I say.
I can't help but notice that Ms Holmes is now wearing a hair loose and a shirt. Having only ever seen her with hair tied and black turtle necks, I'm wondering if this is an attempt at softening her image in the midst of a deluge of bad publicity. Not an ad hominem or personal attack, purely curiosity.
I'm sure some crisis management PR firm has influence on everything she does right now
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope similar attention is paid to men's wardrobe choices next time a corporate scandal article involving a male CEO is posted to HN.
In most businesses if a man wears anything except a suit and tie it is a topic of serious consideration, and possibly a firing offense. The polo + khaki uniform of SV tech is an exception, but still pretty constrained compared to the options that exist for women.
You haven't been anywhere near any sort of technology company in Seattle in the past 10 years, have you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't need a scandal for that. If you look there are plenty of articles about Steve Jobs clothing, and about Mark Zuckerberg hoodies.
Very true, I guess the distinction I'm trying to draw though is between having articles talk about men's clothing vs. having comments on an article about a company with a female CEO quickly go to her physical appearance when the subject at hand is the company's performance. When Facebook makes missteps, I don't think discussion on them quickly jumps to Mark's hoodies.
I can't help but notice that Ms Holmes is now wearing a hair loose and a shirt. Having only ever seen her with hair tied and black turtle necks, I'm wondering if this is an attempt at softening her image in the midst of a deluge of bad publicity. Not an ad hominem or personal attack, purely curiosity.
I hope similar attention is paid to men's wardrobe choices next time a corporate scandal article involving a male CEO is posted to HN.
You mean like Steve Jobs' wardrobe choices?
thoroughly disappointed in the Shriver interview, didn't ask any hard questions, didn't redirect after her answers, didn't really seem like she was at all fully informed about Theranos now if John Carreyrou had been conducting the interview, that would be another thing but I get the feeling that he would never be granted an interview simply because he is much more qualified in terms of competency in Theranos and its…
Yep. When the Chicago Tribune posted an article on how they started a lawsuit for Rahm's email/text records, I almost immediately called them to tell them about the lawsuit I'd filed for his phone records about a month prior after a year long battle with FOIA/IL's Attorney General. You'd think the person writing the article would have cared about the subject. Nope. He was just doing his job. He forwarded me to the pe…
Thats not a humbug fact though, because finding someone who isn't going through the motions can be explosively good. It's like, a gold mine digs up a lot of dirt, but boy is it worth it when they hit a lode.
I have to wonder why the board of directors didn't, you know, direct. In an ideal world this would damage their reputation as directors with future companies. But not today.
This is what happens when you recruit your board based on who they know, instead of what they know. There are very few people on her board who could giver her valid advice about how to run a medical device company, they are all bureaucrats and politicians.