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

171–180 of 234 posts

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#171

Post by briandear »

dagw wrote: post #159
36bydesign wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So no photo is the way to go? Unless the article is about taking photos?

No, but if all you really want to do is add some visuals and show what the CEO of the company looks like, why not just grab the default portrait photo from the company press pack?

And that photo isn't a manipulation? The press kit photos are designed specifically to portray executives in a competent, flattering light. THAT is manipulation of an even more devious sort -- if the company is doing something wrong, showing smiling, in-control executives when that isn't reality -- that's public relations, not Journalism; it misleads the public in drawing a conclusion of trustworthiness when that isn't warranted by the story.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#172

Post by SmokyBourbon »

Fricken wrote: post #72
astaroth360 wrote: post #51

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.

What Madoff did was illegal and malicious from the outset. Do you believe that when Holmes was handed the opportunity, at 19, to bring the Edison to market that she set out with the intent of defrauding investors? The only thing she's provably guilty of thus far is believing in her company a little more than is sensible and being preternaturally competent as a fundraiser. When Musk claims he can get people to Mars fo…

You sure drank the koolaid. The technology DOES NOT EXIST. It was a lie.

This is a real quote from the CEO:

"a chemistry is performed so that a chemical reaction occurs and generates a signal from the chemical interaction with the sample, which is translated into a result, which is then reviewed by certified laboratory personnel."

She took her daddy's money and created a scam company to defraud investors. She relied on secrecy to keep the scam running long enough for real scientists to invent a product for Theranos to sell. It didn't happen. The house of cards came crashing down.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#173

Post by briandear »

mozumder wrote: post #109
logicallee wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it does. We (readers here, you, me, etc) are far outside of mainstream at this news site, HN, and journalistic standards are much higher. When you go from default subreddits to niche ones, the journalidtic integrity improves substantially. Yes, yes, once outside the mainstream, integrity suddenly improves, across the board.

> 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…

I agree on the independent-trustworthy fallacy. Many 'independent' journalists are highly dependent on foundation grants or other funding from some rather biased billionaires. NPR is listener (and taxpayer) funded. Since the majority of the listeners are of a certain political party, it follows that NPR won't challenge the orthodoxy of the hands that feed them.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#174

Post by danso »

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.

I'm not sure how Bloomberg News stores/sells their photos, but on a service like Getty Images, you'll find plenty of b-roll type images, because some clients will want "normal" photos, or alternate angles. Here's the Getty results for Elizabeth Holmes: http://www.gettyimages.com/photos/elizabeth-holmes?family=ed...

In any case, it's not the publication's job to make someone look good or glamorous. It's not the most flattering photo of Holmes but it's not terribly off from what she normally looks like (in general, photos of someone while they're talking/eating aren't going to be ideal, in terms of attractiveness).

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#175

Post by briandear »

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.

You clearly don't know anything about the news photo business or photojournalism for that matter. It's not grip-and-grin posed ribbon cuttings and staged portraits for annual reports. It's photojournalism. An AP wire story written quickly about an explosion isn't going to have the literary gravitas of James Joyce. That doesn't mean that the AP writer is 'incompetent.' They're doing completely different work. Rarely you do get a Hemingway-level reporter or photojournalist that can elevate the mundane to high art, but those photographers aren't getting assigned to Theranos stories but stories of more value than some quick corporate headshot.

When I shot for Reuters (1996-2002) some of my most 'boring' images played all over the world and my favorite photos only occasionally made the wire. Did I look incompetent? I don't really care; My byline in The NY Times for a crap photo was much more valuable than the 'perfect' photo nobody sees.

Pro news photographers don't care; they aren't trying to audition to be your wedding photographer, they're chasing news and not giving a second thought to where some quick corporate headshot is running.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#176

Post by briandear »

Alex3917 wrote: post #125
julianpye wrote: post #6

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.

> This is true for male and female founders. It's not just founders, think about the pictures of Obama and O.J. where they were made blacker. Or the images of James Holmes or Saddam. People will actually complain and threaten to kill the magazine editors if they don't make the 'bad guys' look evil enough; look at what happened with the Rolling Stone photo of the Boston Marathon bomber.

The problem with the Boston thing is that RS put them on the cover -- essentially giving them one of the most honored spots in music. That's what people were mad about -- elevating monsters and putting them at the same level as you might Bono.

They weren't complaining about the saturation or hue.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#177

Post by NicoJuicy »

dsacco wrote: post #2

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…

Let's discuss paywalled articles? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12683017

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#178

Post by briandear »

jacquesm wrote: post #160
onion2k wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The investor's argument is that Theranos lied . The investor believes Theranos fraudulently produced evidence that their product worked in order to fake the responses to the investor's due diligence. If that's true, and the investor can prove it, then that's not simply part of the typical risk of investing, that makes the investor the victim of a serious crime.

That's a dumb argument then. See, when you do due diligence you should assume that the company lies. That's why you go there in the first place, if you believe everything they tell you then you're going to get fleeced if they lie. Theranos did not comply with their duty to inform truthfully, but the investors did not comply with their duty to research. Asking the company is not research, the technology being complex…

When someone lies in order to convince someone to invest -- that's called fraud.

The failure to conduct diligence does not idemnify Theranos. They weren't exaggerating-- they were making claims that just weren't true -- and the knew those claims weren't true and still went to investors with the lies. That shows criminal intent and not just incompetence.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#179

Post by Mithaldu »

protomyth wrote: post #101
julianpye wrote: post #6

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.

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.

Editorializing (i.e. opinions) should stay in the opinion pieces, not be mixed in with reporting of facts. It calls the trustworthiness of the entire rest of the article in question. (Although i guess it's kinda nice if it's done blatantly so you already know in advance the article is particularly untrustworthy.)

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#180

Post by meowface »

Gatsky wrote: post #170
jacquesm wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a dumb argument then. See, when you do due diligence you should assume that the company lies. That's why you go there in the first place, if you believe everything they tell you then you're going to get fleeced if they lie. Theranos did not comply with their duty to inform truthfully, but the investors did not comply with their duty to research. Asking the company is not research, the technology being complex…

This is a valid comment. Theranos' claims for their technology should have been readily verifiable. The reason for this mess is they were given money without asking enough questions. It's actually not even that complicated as having to test the machines yourself, if they had just tried asking a few more questions, it would have become pretty obvious this was a bad investment. There were many smart VCs who kept their…

Is this common among VCs and investors in general, or was it just that Theranos' supposed technology was more complicated than what they were used to, so they couldn't accurately assess it? Or both?
Post reply on HN