The most interest aspect in the FTX saga, for me, is that SBF was treated very gently by major news outlets (and maybe by government regulators too)... until regular individuals in social media started asking: Why is SBF being treated so kindly? Why would journalists (and regulators) assume that SBF meant well? A possible answer that no one ever mentions is that SBF possesses many qualities that are valued and admire…
This wasn't universally true. See the VICE coverage for example.
The "old" media bought into SBF in exactly the same way it bought into Elizabeth Holmes, presumably for some of the same reasons. They have a strong bias/gravity towards covering "wunderkind" entrepreneurs, and they do "access journalism" with these people. It's more about their personal lives and personalities, because that's the story that always sells.
In addition, most outlets (including the NYT) have had a massive blind spot into how shady everything in the crypto space really is. They've long bought the bullshit, and many of their "crypto reporters" are unquestioning crypto bros who basically are industry mouthpieces rather than real journalists. So in a sense they're actually complicit in all the scams and losses, because they've boosted the fiction that "crypto" is somehow legitimate.
One has to hope that a corner has finally turned here, and SBF's highly visible fall will cause these "old" outlets to start doing actual real journalism on the whole "industry" rather than just fluff pieces and boosterism.