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

101–110 of 234 posts

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#101

Post by protomyth »

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.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#102

Post by CarpetBench »

chrsstrm wrote: post #76
jondubois wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think humanity is literally evolving to lie and cheat at a biological level. Soon, universities will have courses in 'Mastering the art of cheating and lying'.

>I think humanity is literally evolving to lie and cheat at a biological level. It's naive to think we were not already born with these core qualities. "Survive at all costs" is a demonstrated maxim that all living beings possess. We didn't consider lying and cheating to be frowned upon until we decided we were a civilized society with rules based on [opinions | deities | etc.]. Having experienced multiple pathologic…

> We didn't consider lying and cheating to be frowned upon until we decided we were a civilized society with rules based on

Eh, what? Where are you getting that from? Any organism with cooperative dynamics also has to contend with cheaters, and yet cooperation is extremely prevalent in nature. There's a reason parasitism isn't considered the norm in the animal kingdom.

I sincerely doubt that primitive human tribes widely tolerated healthy adults who contributed absolutely nothing to the group.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#103

Post by ben_jones »

jupiter90000 wrote: post #80

If one assumes Holmes didn't realize their product didn't work (questionable at best), imagine how it must be to work 7 days a week, forego friendships and intimate relationships, and not even watch TV, then after 12 years of that discover what you tried to make didn't/won't work. In too deep or something to just admit it's over and move on. Sounds like a very undesirable number of years with little positive to show,…

Except the boatloads of money she's already extracted from the company. What about the hundreds of people who propped up her vision and fueled the hundreds of puff pieces by A-level publications that walk away with absolutely nothing? What will it mean to have been a lab tech at Theranos?

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#104

Post by djf1 »

alexqgb wrote: post #79
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"

Alternately, it reflects the tenor of the story and the facts it contains. You could say this is inappropriate editorializing, but that makes the obviously absurd implication that fraud is a neutral thing, and that there are many good kinds of fraud in additional to the bad ones. If you're reporting clear facts about something unambiguously bad, then it's entirely appropriate for the supporting photographs to support…

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.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#105

Post by taeric »

Ayraa wrote: post #100

If you read the interviews of a lot of investors, many of them mention they invested because they believed so strongly in the founder. Afterwards, when their crazy concept works (example: Musk with SpaceX), these founders are lauded a visionary. When their concept fails (as is the case with Homles and Theranos), these founders are branded a fraudster.

To be fair... It isn't that the idea failed. It is that the failures were misrepresented. Badly.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#108

Post by danso »

matt-attack wrote: post #62
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.

> 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. [1] http://davidpaulmorris.com/

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?

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#109

Post by mozumder »

logicallee wrote: post #98
M_Grey wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Implying that once outside of the "mainstream" journalistic integrity suddenly improves? Nonsense.

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 a known known.

It's such a fallacy to assume that just because it's independent that it's more trustworthy, when the exact opposite is true.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#110

Post by jupiter90000 »

ben_jones wrote: post #103
jupiter90000 wrote: post #80

If one assumes Holmes didn't realize their product didn't work (questionable at best), imagine how it must be to work 7 days a week, forego friendships and intimate relationships, and not even watch TV, then after 12 years of that discover what you tried to make didn't/won't work. In too deep or something to just admit it's over and move on. Sounds like a very undesirable number of years with little positive to show,…

Except the boatloads of money she's already extracted from the company. What about the hundreds of people who propped up her vision and fueled the hundreds of puff pieces by A-level publications that walk away with absolutely nothing? What will it mean to have been a lab tech at Theranos?

Hopefully those people weren't giving up everything in their life for a job... but I guess that's anyone's choice. Money is nice to have, though I've enjoyed time with friends, loved ones, and leisure more personally.
Post reply on HN