I have some ill-formed memory of The Block employees being unfair to FTX. But I have to say, that's two consecutive articles that were remarkably fair.
Conversation
I was interviewed for the first article. I found the interview fairly aggressive and combative, and was expecting a hit job. Instead, what came out was a reasonably balanced piece on FTX:
2
18
I was not consulted on the second piece, which was released yesterday. But, like the first, it was totally reasonable. A quote: "Pro tip — a lawsuit has to contain actual factual allegations about specific wrongs that the defendants committed."
1
24
Both experiences left me with the distinct feeling that, in addition to trying to be fair, the authors, you know....... actually thought about the subject. Like considered arguments and evidence and reason and used those to come to conclusions.
1
26
My weak memory is that the person who was unreasonably anti-FTX was . But recently he's also been totally fair! So maybe I'm misremembering (in which case--sorry!); or maybe he's updated (in which case--thanks!).
1
16
Maybe I shouldn't be so surprised by all of this. But the standards of journalism in crypto are really, _really_ low. One part secretly paid shilling, one part "not financial advice", one part random hit pieces on unsuspecting people trying to do something hard.
One part un-reported illegal and manipulative behavior that is aided by un-critical "journalists"
1
Spot the narrative. Figure out the other side of the argument. Know that not all the the known or unknown information is included. Create a hypothesis. Follow to conclusion. All journalism has to be viewed under that lens.