61–70 of 234 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that weird? The photo choice manipulates the reader impression just as they intend. Perhaps what you might mean is something like "disingenuous" or "biased" or "unethical"
> "disingenuous" or "biased" or "unethical" Mainstream journalism will also do just fine.
Nonsense.
One thing I find really weird is the choice of CEO photos in media reporting. If there is good news, they chose 'nice', attractive photos. If there is bad news, they look for worse ones. This is true for male and female founders. In this case, everything about this photo is an 'outtake', from hands, choice of framing, facial expression, eyes - it's a photo a photographer would not keep in their image selection.
Yep. And I wonder what David Paul Morris [1] thinks of having his work used in this manner. It doesn't reflect well upon him as a photographer that's for sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As in -- "trust us investors, look we are going after a failed company to try to recoup the investment we convinced you to make in us and them" -- that doesn't seem like great optics unless they have some possible chance of recouping cash ...
I think it's about being able to say "we weren't idiots who couldn't figure out if it was a good investment, we were straight up lied to".
Isn't her activity like the textbook definition of fraud? Not to mention the dude who she basically pushed into committing suicide. I hope she gets at least as much time as Madoff.
Yes, but she's incredibly well connected, so expect no criminal charges.
This is the first article on this news, so I couldn't find a non-paywalled source. For those who don't subscribe to WSJ, the tl;dr is as follows: • SF-based hedge fund, Partner Fund Management LP, is suing "Theranos and its founder", alleging they lied to attract nearly $100M in funding. • Sources are an internal "fund document" and "people familiar with the matter." • The fund document was reviewed by WSJ and states…
Tip for getting around paywalls (WSJ and NYTimes, prob others): Simply google the URL without any query terms* and click the first link. * e.g., exclude anything after the "?"... if link is example.com/site/page.htm?foo=bar, google example.com/site/page.htm
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but she's incredibly well connected, so expect no criminal charges.
On the other hand, so are some of her investors. And there I think it comes down to protecting their reputations; if they can point to criminal fraud, they can paint themselves as victims rather than fools. We'll see how it plays out.
One thing I find really weird is the choice of CEO photos in media reporting. If there is good news, they chose 'nice', attractive photos. If there is bad news, they look for worse ones. This is true for male and female founders. In this case, everything about this photo is an 'outtake', from hands, choice of framing, facial expression, eyes - it's a photo a photographer would not keep in their image selection.
One thing I find really weird is the choice of CEO photos in media reporting. If there is good news, they chose 'nice', attractive photos. If there is bad news, they look for worse ones. This is true for male and female founders. In this case, everything about this photo is an 'outtake', from hands, choice of framing, facial expression, eyes - it's a photo a photographer would not keep in their image selection.
One thing I find really weird is the choice of CEO photos in media reporting. If there is good news, they chose 'nice', attractive photos. If there is bad news, they look for worse ones. This is true for male and female founders. In this case, everything about this photo is an 'outtake', from hands, choice of framing, facial expression, eyes - it's a photo a photographer would not keep in their image selection.
Isn't her activity like the textbook definition of fraud? Not to mention the dude who she basically pushed into committing suicide. I hope she gets at least as much time as Madoff.