Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Major Investor Sues Theranos

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 234 posts

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#141

Post by protomyth »

Steko wrote: post #137
protomyth wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Photo choice is one of the most effective editorial tools a publication has. For example, do they show a photo of the person as a child, wearing a suit, or casual clothes posed with a weapon? Each is technically the same person, but all will prejudice your view towards the subject.

This photo from Bloomberg photographer David Paul Morris has been used in several dozen stories about Theranos over the last 11 plus months. Sometimes HN tries to be too clever and I don't mean to direct that at you but basically every sibling and cousin comment in this subthread. HN Challenge: next Theranos thread don't upvote comments about CEO's appearance.

I actually don't care about her appearance, and it's not being too clever. Editors pick specific photos for reasons often subconscious ones. You can look at a photo used in a story and see the basic prejudice of the editorial. Ignoring information provided is a poor way to evaluate the source. That the same photo is used often is a data point. Thinking everything is about a woman's appearance in a photo ignores a whole class of information. Your HN Challenge is a call for ignorance which I'll skip.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#142

Post by DavidWanjiru »

alexqgb wrote: post #138
djf1 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's entirely appropriate for the supporting photographs to support the article, but that's not what the parent is questioning. If the news is based on facts, then the facts can speak for themselves. An unflattering photo does not support the article if the article is not related to how well the subject takes photos.

If facts could speak for themselves you wouldn't need journalists to put them into words, photojournalists to render them in pictures, editors to package stories, and publishers to deliver them to millions. Of course it's important for the people in that process to be judicious and scrupulous about their handling of the facts so they can deliver material that provides reliable impressions. But showing unflattering pi…

>If facts could speak for themselves, you wouldn't need a journalist to put them into words.

How would facts speak for themselves without being put into words by someone?

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#143

Post by nickfromseattle »

chx wrote: post #91

Don't forget people have invested in uBeam which was known to be peddling something scientifically impossible. The only possible explanation for that, and truth be told Theranos too is the investors are playing a Ponzi scheme where later rounds are the ones holding the bag. It's an excellent question who should be suing who.

Check out Energous (ticker: WATT). Like uBeam the company is focused on wireless charging, unlike uBeam it's a publicly traded company so you can short it for profit. The market does not seem to have caught on yet.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#144

Post by djf1 »

alexqgb wrote: post #138
djf1 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's entirely appropriate for the supporting photographs to support the article, but that's not what the parent is questioning. If the news is based on facts, then the facts can speak for themselves. An unflattering photo does not support the article if the article is not related to how well the subject takes photos.

If facts could speak for themselves you wouldn't need journalists to put them into words, photojournalists to render them in pictures, editors to package stories, and publishers to deliver them to millions. Of course it's important for the people in that process to be judicious and scrupulous about their handling of the facts so they can deliver material that provides reliable impressions. But showing unflattering pi…

I think it's equivalent to ad hominem, pushing in a direction that should be irrelevant. This example isn't egregious (I didn't have any particular reaction to the picture, personally), but it's unsavory to attempt to build a negative association by spotlighting someone's unflattering physical characteristics.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#145

Post by NumberCruncher »

camillomiller wrote: post #136
hkmurakami wrote: post #12

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"

As a journalist, I disagree. In this case the technique is used more to portray the way Holmes is perceived publicly (a "neurotic and delusional powerful woman out of control" -- not my opinion, just what the photo conveys), than to add a spin to a story that's already independently and factually spun in a very clear direction. The use FoxNews does of this photo-picking with President Obama or liberal politicians is…

>>As a journalist, I disagree. In this case the technique is used more to portray the way Holmes is perceived publicly

As a non journalist this is what I call manipulation.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#146

Post by nikcub »

mikeryan wrote: post #17

Not that I'm surprised that the firm sued but I wonder what their end goal is and how they're planning on getting any sort of meaningful settlement from a company that's currently on fire. This seems mostly a face-saving measure.

Two things I can think of:

1. The lawsuit is calculated to bring Theranos to insolvency sooner while they still have money in the bank

2. It's a way for an investor to convert unsecured equity into a secured debt - pushing them up the seniority queue in bankruptcy (I think specifically that damages from a successful fraud lawsuit can't be discharged)

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#147

Post by will_hughes »

shard972 wrote: post #117
mikeash wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is "extremely far, so it's not sensible to compare them." It's perfectly fine to say "We are going to attempt to build something, here's our plan" and then fail. It's completely unacceptable to say "We have something" when you don't. The only way Theranos could be analogous to Musk is if he had got up on that stage in Guadalajara and said "we have a Mars rocket ready to go, we've tested it extensively, it…

> The only way Theranos could be analogous to Musk is if he had got up on that stage in Guadalajara and said "we have a Mars rocket ready to go, we've tested it extensively, it works, we'll begin commercial flight soon, the line for reservations is on your left, please bring your checkbooks." Devils advocate but isn't that what SpaceX told facebook when launching their satellite? I would assume they asked for money t…

Pretty weak argument there.

If Spacecom wanted a demo to prove SpaceX could launch rockets, they only had to look at the previous 28 Falcon 9 launches that all (bar one) launched successfully.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#148

Post by celticninja »

NumberCruncher wrote: post #145
camillomiller wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a journalist, I disagree. In this case the technique is used more to portray the way Holmes is perceived publicly (a "neurotic and delusional powerful woman out of control" -- not my opinion, just what the photo conveys), than to add a spin to a story that's already independently and factually spun in a very clear direction. The use FoxNews does of this photo-picking with President Obama or liberal politicians is…

>>As a journalist, I disagree. In this case the technique is used more to portray the way Holmes is perceived publicly As a non journalist this is what I call manipulation.

Then so is the text.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#149

Post by celticninja »

matt-attack wrote: post #139
danso wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er...why wouldn't it reflect well on him? The caption for the photo attributes it to him and the Bloomberg News, which means: 1. It's part of the Bloomberg News catalog 2. It may have been published on Bloomberg's own stories of Theranos. 3. WSJ had to pay for the right to use that photo. How would any of those things reflect badly on the photographer?

You forgot: 4. It's a horrible photograph that makes the photographer look incompetent.

No, the photo makes the subject look odd it does not make the photographer look incompetent. The fact that the picture was used by the WSJ shows the picture is good enough for publication.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#150

Post by mozumder »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #118
mozumder wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> HN, and journalistic standards are much higher. Mainstream media has FAR higher journalistic standards than independent media. Major media sites have volumes of books that their reporters follow for their editorial process. AP has a style guide you can buy (and vet). Independent media follow no such journalistic rules. Never trust independent media. Mainstream corporate media is far more trustworthy, since they are…

You just argued that mainstream media has rules, that they problems they bring in are well-understood, and independent media is untrustworthy. You provided evidence for two of them. You did not in any way show mainstream media to be more trustworthy than independent media. If anything, they're clearly not due to all the times they've been caught manipulating their audiences, lying, or even justifying a right to lie.…

> So, the proper response is to do just what honest journalists or even agents in intelligence collection are taught to do: use diverse sources, rate their integrity, identify their biases, and merge them in a way that accounts for the two.

That's pretty much what mainstream media does. That's why you see major investigative articles with lots and lots of cross-referenced sources.

You know about the Theranos fraud because mainstream media, The Wall Street Journal - the largest newspaper in the country - thoroughly exposed them.

Did you thank mainstream media for their work?

Post reply on HN