#ElizabethHolmes
#AmyChozick
#FluffJournalism
New York Times should have sent a REAL reporter to interview "Liz".
Amy Chozick bluntly confesses that she doesn't know how to ask pointed questions of Holmes - Holmes' husband has to do the job for her.
That inability to be decisive and pointed is the most salient feature of the schizophrenic NYTimes fluff piece.
The most essential value of journalism is to process facts into knowledge. AmyC did not do that - we just get alternating paragraphs about how Holmes doesn't look like a criminal interspersed with paragraphs about how she is one. That's exactly why she was able to cheat everyone in the first place, dearie - she didn't LOOK like a criminal. She's not bound for hard time prison due her looks.
Amy presents us with all Holmes' pathetic excuses - so young, so gullible, so much pressure, sexual abuse when she was younger - with no context. How many other people have come from worse backgrounds and did not many have the advantages that she had - yet they made an honest life for themselves?
Elizabeth Holmes herself - not Sunny, not her lawyers - swindled investors, forged medical results, browbeat employees and was so empty of humanity that she was just a 'character the she made up'.
Her sad "mistakes were made" trope is a pitiful mockery of remorse. She is still pulling every trick ( like a last-minute appeal for which she has no legal grounds nor money ) to avoid facing the just penalty for her actions.
Even Holmes' friends (off the record) know she is an utter fraud. How can a reporter for the New York Times with the court records in front of her, not figure that out !?
---
PS. Ironic that a recent article by Amy covered Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking with Strangers". A major premise of that book is that you cannot judge someone's character by interviewing them. You'll actually make a worse assessment after personally meeting them.
Deadline
Old Ain't Dead
Queer Lit Cats
Adam