Welcome. I remember one of these podcasts
room just got occupied. So she's now in a isn't a
mediator at this point. It's the it's the theater room
of Soho House. Yeah.
It's the screen room with a show like all like the I don't know.
Like, I don't independent movies made by members, who know what I
was gonna say, like, Terry Richardson movies or yeah,
something like that, right? Let me five.
That is all of Chloe, seven years home videos.
Oh my God, I think, I mean if they could even get such a
thing, you know, could get such a thing.
Let's take a look here. I see that line.
Okay, so I'm like this is the show.
It's already started. You don't need the outline.
We're recording right now. What was it?
We were Giving about I don't remember you know when we when
we're looking at the at the state of the tech media
landscape. Certainly I noticed that the
therapist trial was on the front page of the Wall Street Journal
was on the dress page of the business section of the times.
I think it would have been front page of the Washington Post.
It was not front page of the journal, was the front page
photo and then you had to go inside for the story but still
that's very high profile and you guys have made very plain that
you do not think that That this trial is worth all the coverage
and I go back and forth on it, I go back I'll tell you what, turn
my opinion on it was when I saw the picture of the Elizabeth
Holmes like cosplayers at the trial which maybe is unfair, you
know. It really was just like the back
heads of various women who had, you know were blond and had it
in buns. But as like man, it's still did
penetrate pop culture in a way that I don't think anything
really hasn't Tech in a long time.
So like there's no question to me that the Media wants this
trial to happen so hard. They want this to be like, the
trial of the decade or whatever are like pandemic entertainment,
right? But I don't know.
I mean, like, and I want to and I wanted to test it for that
because it does really seem like there's no juice left in.
Like, in that fruit. The stories were so good.
You know, we all watch the 9 documentaries and 15 podcasts
and we feel like we got the story, but then, I don't know.
It's like the second Elizabeth home takes the stand.
And we all here? You know that fake-ass voice it
all. It could all come running
rushing back. Why is genuinely a compelling
story? I think part of the issue, you
know, is just that, you know, the tech World consumes it much
earlier than the rest of the public, right?
Like the John Kerry Rue piece came out in 2015.
You know, the initial one with that sort of subtle headline,
hot start up. Their nose has struggled with
its blood testing technology. I struggled.
Yeah, maybe I remember reading that.
We all saw that and I we found it pretty convincing and then
she came Onstage at the Wall Street Journal conference and it
was, you know, this big that was before that piece came out know,
is after that what she said, the buck stops here, she was very
out of it. How's the Wall Street Journal
thing was after no, but they didn't have John's age.
They had somebody else. It was like crap and they had
Jonathan crane to write and it was sort of like, are they gonna
go hard? It was sort of mixed, even
though it was their own story, which was sort of weird.
Yeah, but thanks, that's like, that's the combination of the
conference but rice too. And so then we sort of Watched
you know, sort of this, the VC World, finally accepted probably
something had gone wrong and then sort of shift from pushing
back against the story to sort of saying, well, wasn't a tech
thing. Anyway, and, and it feels like
it's sort of been resolved. Like, I think, especially after
the book came out. Most people think she's guilty
in the book was pretty convincing, and I don't even
think if the jury somehow found that she was not guilty, I don't
know that I would be sold that she hadn't done something
unethical, right? Because clearly, that's not the
jury, doesn't it? I'd sort of pure ethics.
But my point of view in the jury is looking specifically for
intent. I don't write anything in
dispute is not whether or not the device worked and dispute is
not whether or not investors. Were told something that was
untrue. It's whether or not she had an
intent to defraud them or whether or not as she argues.
She was not really informed or the other argument that I
actually find really compelling that.
I'm hoping gets more play. Is this idea that she was in an
abusive relationship and she's brought up the term coercive
control, which She's very specific term, a couple of
states in the country. Now, of course of control laws
or trying to pass course of control laws, including
California Hawaii in New York, and it's a very, it's it's a
phenomenon associated with domestic abuse.
We are by basically, what domestic abuse Advocates argue
is that physical violence is sort of the endpoint of an
abusive relationship that abusers their goal is to control
the other person. Their goal is to take Their
freedom, their goal is basically to entrap them and so there are
a lot of steps that happen before anybody is physically
abused. And so people are starting to
recognize the totality of this and of course, I've written
about it. So I'm interested in it, you
know, I wrote a story about FKA twigs and her relationship where
she sued over, what she considered, you know, coercive
controlling relationship, that included fairly horrible
allegations of physical violence.
You know, we've spoken with representative core the bush
from from Maryland about her abusive relationship and how
much of it involved coercion and so to see in homes, is defense
homes as lawyers raised the Specter.
That this was a part of why she acted, she acted, I think is
really interesting. Truly interesting.
It's not what you think that you find that really got, you know,
it's not just something the tech press uncovered and its
investigations because it's a fairly new argument.
That's been put out by her team. Well, it's complicated by her
position in sort of the narrative where You know, she's
the one on the magazine covers. I mean, part of the reason their
nose was blown up because it was, here's a strong woman who's
really leading the show. So then for the defense to be,
actually she was totally controlled by a man is both
counter to the whole narrative. That everybody procon sort of
agreed with, I mean, yeah. And I, obviously, I guess on
that defense, there's a lot, we don't know, we're starting to
see, like, text messages and stuff, but, right, and it's
still not clear, totally that they're going to do.
Do that is the main defense, right?
They sort. And it's not clear, it's just
something that was raised in a court filing.
And of course, you know, I think that the idea that a woman can't
be in an abusive relationship is one of the tropes that, you
know, we've seen in reporting and, you know, and stories about
domestic abuse. That actually keeps women and
trapped in relationships, the shame, they feel about admitting
that they could be in that situation, especially think
something about their lives that says, yeah, wrong quote-unquote,
did you think it diminishes? I mean like I, you know, your FK
AFK. What is f Ka?
FKA twigs. Okay.
Twig story. Hit, you know.
We were. Yeah.
She was in. Yeah.
Eric just discovered LCD Soundsystem?
Yeah I mean that was a physically abusive relationship
I think with Shia LaBeouf. I mean wouldn't someone like
Elizabeth Holmes who at that point in time was you know a
billionaire at least on paper using this and there doesn't
seem to have been physical elements of it.
I mean do you do people that focus on this type of law and
you know the women that have been abused it?
Doesn't it feel like that? Could diminish that in some
respect? I mean I understand what you're
saying that physical abuse is the endpoint of what can long be
an abusive relationship. But you know, will there be that
many people that are pushing for more recognition of this kind of
abuse seeing someone like, Elizabeth Holmes?
He's not defense and saying, oh man, this is a step too far.
You know, I think it depends on two things one whether or not
the defense team, actually uses this argument and presents
compelling evidence, like text messages or emails or, you know,
any of the other sorts of things, you know.
Brainiest notes or account shared with friends, any of
those sorts of things that often bolts, bolster allegations, and
give them wait in the minds of the jury and in the minds of the
public, and if that were to happen, I think that that would
be an interesting thing to take a look at.
Because again, the idea that domestic abuse is primarily
about physical violence, isn't is a is not necessarily true.
It's all right. Offense to say, both, If we did
nothing wrong and I always coerced into doing it right the
wrong thing. So it does feel the idea of the
idea of penalty in this case is such an interesting one too
because, you know, you never want to Say Never And as we've
seen frequently in Silicon Valley, the people that get
blacklisted or blackballed, or whatever can return raising
rounds quite easily and always return.
Yeah, I mean, I would be 11,000, pardon Anthony level.
Yeah, he got a glowing interview kick you today.
I mean, And Travis kalanick, I, you know, said he's probably out
there raising, I think he wants another billion for cloud
kitchens. You know, is already worth like
5 billion. Maybe he wants sort of 10
million plus right. So, yeah, I mean Highlands beer.
It's a pretty ballsy move. I would say, I did not, I would
not put, especially in our current funding environment.
Nothing is impossible. But like, you know, if the true,
you know, result of any sort of punitive action is to prevent
someone from being able to participate.
Pate in the industry that they're in.
How would say she might be there already.
And so it'll be interesting to see like what, you know, blood
the public really wants from her in order to feel that Justice
was done. I mean, the thing that always
made the theranos case, step outside of the typical Tech
Scandal. And the reason that I think it
had purchased in the mainstream is that there were steaks,
right? It wasn't just about someone to
frauding Betsy DeVos and Rupert Murdoch.
It was like, there are people in Arizona who were told they had.
We thank her for that part of it.
Yeah, sure. It made.
I feel like we're writing stories about things that have,
you know impact. No, no, that's not what I'm
saying. I'm not saying we thank her that
it's terrible. I'm saying, we, I would say I
was joking. There were thing here because
Rupert Murdoch got to Friday and I'm cheering for that like that,
you know, for the record I'm not cheering for Rupert Murdoch
about state of Oz to be defrauded.
It's really important that that's Eric statement and
definitely not mine. Yeah, yeah.
I to abstain from signing on to that statement but I do think
that, you know, because there were people Being completely
fraudulent blood test because of it, it helped bring this into a
level of relevancy. That I always find is the major
problem with a lot of tech investigations is that you're
like, okay, Travis was an asshole.
If you can't prove to me why this is affecting people's lives
and it did, by the way, I think we in the case of Travis, but
because it's happened with fairness, you know, it mattered
and yet, you know, we're at this point now we're like, What is
the appropriate crime to be charged with and like how much
is she going to be sad? Will be interesting to see from
The Trial, just how many instances of people getting sort
of incorrect results that affected their lives, the
government can produce, I mean that keep in mind even the
government produces Myriad examples, it's really the
intent. That's the question, right?
Because it, you know, did, it's intentionally defrauding
investors and users of a product is very different from just
making a bad product right? From failing, definitely.
Do you think? I wonder how much the investors
themselves care? I understand that's not the
burden of proof, but it reminds me of the people that, you know,
we're defrauded after funding, you know, the people that had
the GoFundMe for Trump's border wall and and Steve Bannon and
the other dude ended up getting, I believe also charged by the
feds for for fraud. It's like I bet you the tens of
thousands of people that gave money to this, you know,
completely corrupt GoFundMe money.
Well, spent to them like they got to feel good because they
were pushing money towards a hey, It'll cause that they agree
with. I don't know, having so much
sue. If they if you believe that the
FBI and deep State agents are against Donald Trump and all the
people associated with him. It's not inconceivable, I think
if that's the place someone's coming from to also think of
those charges completely fraudulent and of themselves,
right? But back to the media side of
things with it. I mean it's clear to me from, I
haven't read any of the stories yet because I'm still mix on how
much I care about this thing. Just reading, you know, the
tweets from people like are encrypted, we're here, you know.
Oh my God, just reading the Tweeter and Nightmare combat,
your everything is wrong with this.
Yeah, it's like I have a podcast worth take, but I've only
consumed tweets on this. So what happened?
I read the carry Roux. Okay, I read on treating the
book in English class. Well, you read the book, I read
the book, I read the carry right interview John Kerry room.
I'm a true expert here. What's the chain.
But but it's just very Clear to me that the fixation on the part
of the New York Times and the post and the Wall Street Journal
is the fact that you note is the media that is on trial here as
well. And, you know, we're looking at,
you know, the cover of Fortune where she, you know, she's out
for blood. And she was clearly someone who
was built up by the Press because the Press desired,
someone 21 be the head of, you know, a female executive which
there are too few of them. And so it's a very easy pitch
like we talked about in the past on this show to get people
writing about it and it's blood which Is, you know, which is
kind of sexy and it's Hardware which is something that you
rarely see Hardware Barons and I happened during that Hardware
Renaissance around wearables and around everything being
connected in the home and around.
There was a lot going on in terms of investment into objects
that we're not going to make anyone any money.
Yeah, so I mean, look, of course, the media has never
really self-reflective about any of this but like, you know, I do
think there could be a way that people view this trial and the
amount of positive. Of like the amount that is
Elizabeth Holmes as a figure is directly, the result of press
and the stories that we wanted to be true because it made for
better stories and better magazine covers and a better
economic model that, you know, could cause people to take a
second look but you know she's such a caricature now that it
probably won't matter what the mainstream media to.
If we group The Post in the journal and the times into that
category, the fascination is it's a general interest story
now. And so, right, you know, when we
were Working at Tech Publications for the most part
or business Publications. It made sense that they were
obsessed with homes and 2015 16 and 17 because it was a world
that our readers were really invested in.
When the average New York Times reader is probably not invested
in the cover of Fortune magazine that features Elizabeth home
right here. You know, they're reading that,
that's the that's what I want to jump because I mean, you know,
we covered all in 2015 but then the Alex Gibney documentary
comes out in 2019 and I was looking at Google Trends and
that's when a lot of the search interest comes out of it, you
know, we're talking years later. So I do you think yeah, some of
why we react negatively Tom and I at least to the coverage.
Now is just sort of like hipster dumb in the lamest form which is
just 0. This was a big Silicon Valley
story years ago and why is it still playing out?
And I do think it's that's when we're thinking about tech.
We're like political stories are sort of national Is when they
come out, but in certain way, Tech stories can stay pretty
small for a long time. And then if somebody blows them
up, all of a sudden, you know, now this is Tiger King or
whatever. Well, actually it reminds me
more of Enron. I think is the is the most
analogous story I can think of, you know, when Bethenny MacLean
was investigate doing those stories about Enron, it was, you
know, 2,000 right 2001. And for the most part it was
only People who were interested in financial news, who read the
stories, it wasn't. I mean, the the phenomenon
coincided again with another Alex gibney's documentary that
came out in 2005. The smartest guys in the room
which was based on a 2003 book that Bethenny and Peter elkind,
my former colleagues at Fortune who are both awesome people.
I want to say they're wonderful that they had written in 2003
and so you really saw the public interest and Enron Ryan.
Build around the collapse of the company because suddenly becomes
general interest because everybody loses their jobs and
regular people are losing their jobs.
You see, the interest in what was going on with Enron, you
know, build around the trial and then around this documentary,
but the there was not general public interest in the
investigative pieces. That Bethany was writing it
first and and their nose feels very similar except if there are
no suppose a small company so didn't have lots and lots and
lots of employees. He's who all lost their jobs
when it collapsed. And, you know, a whole
accounting firm didn't go down as well.
Right now, I feel like in the business world, you need to
process the lessons from their nose, in 2015, right?
Not saying that there are perfect, but the smart investors
need to take in what went on with Enron.
And, you know, and integrate that and they were all they were
integrated with that's before two thousand, five in two,
three. That's what the business press
is trying to do. So then, by the time, the
Public's grappling with it, it's changing culture.
It Just weird that it can change culture is so much later when
the actual like movers and players have sort of accepted
like something bad happen like this, right is the nature.
I also like in the business or the business processes, but it
also, because of a number of factors it lent itself.
Well, to a visual documentary form which I think helps a ton,
if it were just a book, no one fucking reads.
So that's not going to go anywhere.
But Elizabeth Holmes, there's a huge amount of footage of her.
Yeah, you know these conferences her speaking on stage, Age her
talking to her employees her for some reason, jumping very slowly
in a bounce house. That was like I have been in the
Galaxy. Yeah.
And Alex Gibney thing, which is totally sensationalistic, you
know, the doc. I mean there's like, you know,
what is your? They have very normal office
stuff but they have to make it seem Sinister right there.
Sure, I guess if you, you know, anyone is jumping up and down,
it seems Sinister but like it was a compelling
sensationalistic documentary and she was a great fucking
character like she is what she's being sweet.
Yeah. Yeah.
And she has a specific outfit and she repeats the same story
over and over again and there was tons of documentary footage
and it was the same with Enron, right?
I mean there were all these, there is all this video of Ken
Lay and I don't remember the other guys, but it's killing
after knowing. Yeah.
Like, there's like literal audio
and video of them conniving to cut or not them specifically.
But like Enron employees conniving to cut the state of
California off and cause rolling blackouts.
I mean, that's That's good shit. And it's so rare when that
happens and you know, compared to something like uber, which
were great stories. I mean, I, you know, I loved
reading like Isaac's book. It's not that interesting,
right? Like it's, you know, it's a lot
of scenes of, You Know, Travis being upset and you know, and he
was fuming after this or that happen, but it's just not going
to make a documentary thing. Is this breaking news right now?
Prince Andrew has just served with a lawsuit.
Oh my God, the Jeffrey Epstein accuser.
Hold on. Hold up, interesting.
We will see unfortunately, because it crossed my screen via
CNBC, it's only a headline and it says, please check back for
updates. So, we'll see what happens.
I look forward to that trial where he has to defend the fact
that he lost his sweat glands, or was his overage of sweat
glands because of the Falkland Island War.
How do you know this shit is crazy?
Yeah, whatever. Those one of the greatest TV
moments of the last couple of years is him being like I I lost
the ability to sweat, there was no one to tell him not to do
that interview. Yeah, yeah, that's when you get
Brunswick in there. Where were you before I set this
while I was setting up. You think there's just like
they're these stories that the media feels compelled to cover
even though? The reporters don't like the
story or they're these weird counter into it.
I was thinking I mean if you want to cover Derek well-knit
well I'm thinking about the Facebook glasses thing.
Like it's funny that these stories come out and they get
blow up coverage because it's, like Facebook's doing something
that people are going to want to talk about.
Even though the orientation of a lot of the stories is, this is
Dom comedy copying Snapchat, blah, blah, blah.
Like it to me. There's a that the sort of
fatalism of the media I think plays out in sort of that.
There are no stories and a lot of Stuff where they're sort of
separate intuitions about what's newsworthy.
And then the reporter is sort of underlying View and therefore
the vector of coverage. I will say that when I moved to
California to cover Tech, you know I've been covering Wall
Street, I covered it at a time. When you could argue it became
general, interest news because of the generous financial
crisis, and I had never been a tech, like I was not a gadgety
person. So I was fascinated coming to
the valley. Lie about by the aggressive
coverage of of gadgets. I didn't understand it.
It was so alien to me that there were so many people.
Voraciously hoovering up stories about new, you know, apple and
minor improvements to products or like the Snapchat glasses.
I just felt like it was a world that had been unknown to me.
Did you see the video on the iPhone 14?
There is you tipped? Uber has yeah laughter, if I do,
I'm like, well, I was going to buy an iPhone 13 way more people
get out about that day. That's what I learned like.
Who cares my spending $1000 on iPhone this year, or next year?
What features of mind getting? You know, my I could write a
story about, you know, about black Stones, like, takeover of
the commercial real estate market.
A move that basically like most fixed income.
Market and moves like, the real estate market and impacts all of
us in Myriad ways. Blah, blah, blah.
Stop listening. No one.
Yeah, and I could, then when I moved to California, I could
write a story about it, iOS update, and it would be like a
gajillion readers. But that, but that to me, gets
back to the theranos phenomenon and one of the reasons that it
worked was because it was about a piece of hardware and we're in
this period now where Hardware is so static and in and there's
nothing really interesting coming out on a hardware.
That's and so for any company to make an attempt to do something
that seems novel or new, I mean, fuck the Snapchat.
Spectacles, Katie. I think you waited in line for
Me. Maybe did in New York?
I got. Are you?
It was cool. Yeah.
Yeah, my Twitter daughter for a while was wearing your Snapchats
spectacles. Yeah.
I still have not acted. I sold mine on eBay very soon
after acquiring. Yeah.
And the price like plummeted because member at first, they
were going for like a couple thousand dollars.
Yes, I should have sold made money on.
In Katie, I did make some money. Wow, a Speculator over here.
Yeah, but like the, yeah, Hardware is so boring right now
that even when someone makes a minor attempt to do what seems
to be novel or could be, you know, interesting to a mass
audience, the journals are going to jump all the fuck over it.
Even though these Snapchat as sorry, huh, these Facebook
glasses, the best that they've done over the course of those,
you know, spectacles which came out in 2016.
I think to now is that now they look the less.
Move it, that's it. But importantly value of this
stupidity was so that they stood out so that people wouldn't feel
skeeved out by being right. I think Evan thought he was high
fashion. I think he had convinced
himself, all right? He was Tom was a real time was
obsessed with SNAP for many years.
So I want the Deep the Deep reading upon reflection of the
spectacles. Well first of all, they're still
making them and and to Snapchats credit other a lot of things to
snaps credit and Evans credit. I mean one is That he has
actually put out glasses that have some augmented reality
features in them. They're lame they don't do
anything good but at least they you know come close to the idea
of what these wearable Technologies are supposed to be
which is like putting some sort of computerized reality in the
real world. And the fact that he has
recognized that there a toy, he said this from the beginning
like that, you know, the problems that magic leap and
these other companies run into, is they make all these grandiose
Promises of like, This is you at work and you're going to be like
throwing emails, you know, I don't have your field of vision
and in fact, it's like a tiny, you know, field of vision that
can do minor little gimmicks. I mean it's basically where the
technology is and where it's going to be.
We can talk about that later but like yeah, Evan has always said
that this is going to be something at least for the next
ten. Maybe more years like within the
realm of a toy. And so but there's these
promises that, you know, Facebook and he's other an apple
which is going to put out their glasses, are they may be some?
Yeah. Sure.
I mean they've been investing in it for years and I don't I don't
know I don't know if I think the information is written like a
million stories about it I mean it's all bullshit to me because
they're not cool, all these things suck, it's just glasses
with cameras on them which at most is a convenience to not
holding up your phone and taking a pic but someday it will be
awesome, right? I mean that's I think I mean, I
think part of what powers something Tech stories is like
the intuition and I mean, again to tie back to their nose, it's
sort of the idea, sounds great. You can see why I made.
Sure, I have a lot of Is it sounds great?
There is the idea for so long. People are like okay the
execution failed snap did this five years ago, but someday, you
know, computer vision is so important, put it on everything
and you'll be able to do a ton of stuff like that intuition,
no, in face of All Odds, all evidence Human Experience, you
know, stay strong. And I mean, that's sort of how
we have new. Cool idea is right at some
point. They figured out were, but I
also think like, people need to recognize that there is a
reality like an actual reality of whether these things are
possible. Possible in any way that people
describe. I mean, like I remember one of
the things that you said that I thought was like one of the
smart things you said was that you were never.
We were never interested in Ubers self-driving.
So yeah, you're never gonna write about that because you
thought it was bullshit but you never get credit for that.
My problem with that was like my stance was not to like, shit,
all over them. It was just to not write about
them a lot because I thought they were overhyped and it's
sort of hard as a reporter to get much traction off of just
like saying out of a story, you know, I feel smart maybe my Is
like, respect me if they ever figured out that, that was my
strategy but but yeah, it's not a winning play necessarily as a
reporter, just sit out a dumb story.
Well, I do think that these, someone that these products do
hit reality, that just hit the market reality.
And so the reporters who are in the position of trying to
prognosticate and explain why they're impractical, and why
they won't work. And I was one of those reporters
and it is very thankless the reality on the ground.
Those that you are basically telling that story to a group of
people who don't want to hear it.
It's not really a general interest story.
And so what have you done? Like you've laid down a record.
So, when the self-driving car doesn't happen by 2022, you were
right? And like, it does feel after a
while, like your, if you want to do investigative work.
Your time is better. Spent looking at something else.
Other than the idea that you've, you're talking to a crazy
dreamer. Yeah.
On those self-driving predictions.
Like the media is sort of One of the main villains right by, of
course. So it's by putting out the
headlines that say, this is going to happen and xyd.
Sure. And I remember with, you know, I
mean so like to the Facebook glasses, like the version of
that with self-driving cars which was way, Mo was one way Mo
a couple years ago. You know.
It wasn't called way more than but Google when they were you
know working on their self driving car tech.
We're taking all these reporters out on these drives these
self-driving, you know, tours in like parking, lots and Mountain
View and they were all these glowing Thousand words stories
in The Verge about how fun it was to sit in the world's
dumbest car and be like drawn, you know, driven around a
parking lot and that was 67 years ago, but every no one's
gets held accountable. Like, that drives me crazy.
I do think there should be, somebody should get blame.
Like anyone reporters was a version of this for a version of
this for so many beats, you know, on on Wall Streets deals
reporting. You know how many deals are
reported on. If you're a Wall Street deals,
reporter you're trying to scoop deals.
Never happen. Where company a just doesn't buy
come maybe, right. And Bloomberg.
There was such an incentive just to report.
It's like they were deal talks. Yeah.
Because like this is like everyone else, like sure.
It's the same time. Like what is holding the
reporters? Quote unquote accountable do you
know, Damien like is our job is to inform the public.
Not get them excited about, don't skills that are never
going to happen. I got super excited about deal.
So this like for my heart, this has really been fun.
Here's a, here's the corollary in my world.
Investigations, when the FBI is investigating something?
The number of times, the investigation ends indictment is
not one of the, the percentage of times the investigation ends
an indictment. I will just say is not 100% and
so is it correct for a reporter to inform the public that an
investigation is ongoing? When obviously, by saying that
someone or something is under an Action.
It is a problem for many parties, it makes it puts the
person under investigation a position of having to defend
themselves before. They're actually being asked to
defend themselves in a court of law, which they may never be
asked to defend themselves of, if there is no indictment, then
what is the result? The role and responsibilities of
the media, right? And and I think that that's, I
think it's complicated. I want Go back to the legal
issue for sick. I mean, to me, I covered, you
know, I did a story about boobers legal problems, it was
2017. I think dhara was already CEO,
and it said there are at least five justice department
investigations into Uber, which was certainly true, an Uber
discloses, some of them later in the s-1.
Yeah. And some of those never or at
least to date, haven't produced anything real like even I think
gray ball, you know, which was York Times sort of big ethics,
candle and Uber, which I think, you know, is legitimately big
deal, but that's no. Every there were three unethical
thing. Every unethical thing is not
something covered by the criminal codes.
I think that's something the public and I think it's
something. The media has done a bad job of
explaining to the public is just because something seems
unethical to us or something that we would not do does not
mean that it lines up with some, you know, USC number, right.
And it doesn't mean it's going to end in charges, right?
Then on the flip side, you know, Ubers big that the hack, which
may have been a bug Bounty program depending on where you
sit on that is one of the ones where, you know, Joe Sullivan
was, you know, Accused by, you know, by prosecutors.
And I don't know where that one stands at the moment, but, but
you know, an Uber paid a huge settlement in that case.
So there are these cases where they're big consequences years
later. I mean Lewandowski just got
pardoned in 2020, Joe Sullivan, I think just got indicted in
2020, so these things. So it's possible things are
still playing out and I personally this is sort of a
naive reporter view but I do think the legal system should
exonerate people to. Like I think there should be
more of what they should admit that there's been a lot of
public reporting on it and they should come out and say you
know, we did look into this and we sort of we don't think
there's a case or even we think that they're innocent.
Like I feel like just Just you know, online world where news
travels so fast, I think the legal system should play some
part. In cleaning.
Up the record I've wondered about to your point how being
online all of the time and the way that information both moves
online and then morphs online, you know we have a lot of people
like Tom who are just reading headlines and sharing
information and I never The Headless when Twitter says had
you want to read the article first I'm like Like no no, fuck
you for asking. Yeah, I don't I mean in the case
of Thera knows, I just think it's not.
It's, you know, I just don't know how necessary, any of it is
to the reason the public was interested in this, which is
again, not that Betsy DeVos Rupert, Murdoch were defrauded,
but that this person had a fabulous tale of a technology
that didn't seem even close to happening.
And it was sensationalized by the media, both in building it
up, and then later and later taking it down.
And I just, I'll be interested to see page views wise, how Much
people care about this trial because it's definitely there's
a desire on the part of the media for it to be as juicy as
it remained in its earliest days and I just you know we'll see I
go in for thymine is the think the edit.
There's editorial discretion that's important.
I do the I think there was a world in which sometimes and I'm
not there in. As you could argue, might not be
this but where there are stories of great import where decisions
are made to put them on a homepage or to send them out?
Um, you know a news alert on people's phones or to put them
on the front page of a publication or the cover of
publication that the public doesn't care about and and yet
it's important to do so. And don't think that when the
Washington Post put out the Afghanistan papers a few years
ago, right? I do wonder how many page views
those stories? Actually got.
No, they were arguing and nobody most important stories have
should take its cues from page views but I do think
specifically Leon on Trials why I wanted to talk about?
Like, like the Ellen, Pao trial, right is one where people
Silicon Valley covered it. Very closely.
Now, that's maybe more of an Insider story than a public
awareness story. I don't know what the Hannah
tration of of that story was to the public.
No, no, I mean, like it fit me because it was about sexism.
I think it probably touched on certain areas where people were
talking about. Oh, this is what it's like to be
a woman successful woman and you know, they probably crazy.
It's over like her name it some. I mean I thought that was an
interesting trial for women. I think that was a general
interest story. Yeah, I do.
I mean, I'm not saying I think it was important.
I think it was good, that it got covered.
I just I don't know if empirically I'd be curious to
see the date on it, but it to me.
What's interesting about that trial is just She lost but I
think the public consensus sided with her.
I mean, certainly when I watch that try I felt like I took away
enough to think that Kleiner was pretty inhospitable to women and
Ellen Pao in particular whether or not that met whatever the
legal standard of gender discrimination.
Maybe the jury is better to position to assess that I am.
It is interesting case. I guess what I'm saying is that
the coverage is set up to care about the verdict.
But in a certain A, I do think the coverage sort of plowed
through the verdict there and said that, it doesn't matter in
a certain way, or I'm curious. If you guys have takes on that,
well, you know, I think that you're right and that in the
case of LM how that even though she lost her case, that there is
a way in which the public felt that she was right.
If nothing else there was a sense that she been wrong.
I think another interesting example of this is Brett
Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, you know, there he was confirmed
and despite that fact, there are a lot of people United States
who believe that Christine blasi Ford was deeply wronged.
Even though he was confirmed even though things went his way,
and then there are, of course. Also people like, you know, so,
you know, there are also people who say that he was, he was
totally wronged as well, and all of them.
But, but but it's the The outcome is very separate from,
you know, a certain segment of the Public's power of the trial
as like a media device. Is that it's all metaphorical,
right? It's, you know, you're able to
apply the stakes of the trial into larger social ills that you
are, you know, are being discussed and debated in the
background of, like the specific crime here.
And so like, in the case of not, that was a trial.
But, you know, like Brett Kavanaugh, this was an
opportunity to talk about, you know, all of the ways that the
Republican party has Morphed into this kind of very base and
you know, Trump's, you'll grab them by the pussy and all of
that stuff. You were able to kind of finally
have an opportunity to say this is what this come.
You know the this party stands for look at who they chose.
The fact that they're willing to Ram.
This person through is deeply offensive to many people.
There's a way in which that story was also used to play out
a narrative around hysteria around me to write my reach.
You know, trial, you know these sort of like unfair public
Trials of men who have been accused of sexual assault so
that did right there were all these columns.
You know, Kevin I should be a wake-up, call a chilling moment,
two men in America that you know, this could happen to you.
So you're right, it wasn't a trial by any means but certainly
the way that that those Congressional hearings played
out the they allowed lots of different people 22.
Use what was happening on television as a way to tell a
bigger Meredith narrative about Society, right?
And, and which again, with Elizabeth Holmes, I just don't
know what that is, right? Other than she's a compelling
character. Like, what are we supposed to
draw from? Well, you know, they, you know,
Silicon Valley is willingness to turn a blind eye to problems and
there because it's it wants either, you know, you could say
because it wants to be Innovative and it desperately
wants to move sir. Society forward with these new
products that nobody else would ever take a risk on or because
it's just pure greed, whatever. The reason I think that's one
sort of bigger narrative and then, like the way in which that
the media builds up women, and then tears them down.
I just, because I couldn't sleep last night, I re-watched the
framing Britney Spears, documentary.
The New York Times Did, which is awesome.
It's good. And again, like it's so it's
really devastating to look back on how that works for her.
How the me You know, the media made her in some ways but then
certainly destroyed her in almost every way.
And so I think that's another another sort of bigger
narrative. Well, I think one is one thing
that I'm interested in and sort of how much do fraudulent
Founders matter. Right.
In one view, there's a degree to which they get sort of washed up
in the vastness of the money, right.
The startup model is meant to deploy a bunch of capital and
Are you could almost say there's something good about a world in
which you can deploy so much Capital that like some of them
are zeros and it doesn't disrupt the system.
I think that's not VCS, that's the VC line, right?
I think is interesting talking to Elliot Brown who co-wrote the
cult of? We the we workbook with a marine
Farrell and he I asked him you know who's the victim right?
And he said you know, the victim is like the truth and I do think
that's what reporters really feel like that that there are
these cases. Specially when we feel this
inevitable sense that we need to put a story in the headlines
because it's big news. And so then we do it and then
it's not true, obviously we feel guilty and then part of our way
to deal with that is probably to overcorrect in the coverage on
the downfall because we over, we were too loud on the way up.
And so I do think there's a part of what we're sorting through is
just Why? Why did we all believe it?
Why was the public truth wrong for so long?
And how can we avoid sort of having the public truth?
Be wrong for so long on the next big business story?
Well, that means speaks so much to how reporting Works sourcing
Works. How competition between
reporters works, you know, so if there's this week puts Adam
Newman on its cover and writes this like extraordinarily
entertaining glowing profile of the guy, you know, businessweek
will have access to him and he's a font of information for things
Beyond we work. And so other reporters are
incentivized to want access to that as well.
I mean, I think that's part of the reality and to be the
reporter who's like this guy is full of shit is very difficult,
right? You know, that's why they're
sort of tipped a contagions mood, right?
If you're a big publication, why are they all positive or
negative at the same time because their ability to get the
sources? Depends on their relative
positive or negative duty, but also the sources decision to
want to talk to you. I think is this is like a
reaction to the overly effusive press that a thing and gets.
You know, there's, there's a certain amount of jealousy.
I mean, you know, there truly was a huge amount of like,
misleading and inaccurate, statements, and lying and fraud,
whatever. When it comes to, we work.
But the decision for people to want to speak out and, you know,
leaked to reporters like Elliot and Ellen.
And all the people that wrote about Adam Newman was probably
due to the fact. They're just like this guy is
Fucking phony. Why is everybody writing so many
nice stories about him? You need to know what's really
going on. This is not a big story but when
I did my Munch tree take down like my source is went
ballistic. When shervin was like during
Passover, was like, this going to be a global business on TV or
whatever and they were like, we're in like, five cities in
the United States and it is sort of just like people suffer from
just like the reality to start at some level just watching like
these untrue, he's become so huge in the Press.
At some point people come out and say like let's let's correct
this. And so I do think yeah.
Bluster. Thankfully and The Human
Experience has its counter and people who just like can't
stomach, you know rights and that's the corrective.
But it's funny back to the investor side of things.
I remember when read Albert Gotti was writing the story
about magically at the information and, you know, he
was just uncovering more and more about how far off they
were, they were in their Tech and how, you know, the augmented
real. They were promising was just
complete vapor. And he was telling me like I
think investors like to be scammed really like I think they
like sort of having someone come in there and do the whole show
in front of them. Even though they probably know
in the back of their minds and they're not going to make this
work and I don't think that you can tell a good story and they
feel like they're smart enough to see the limits of it and feel
like, oh, there's and get more. Yeah, I do.
Otherwise I'm trying to make your say, I like the idea of I
know or that it's just like it's just like Payment for them
though. Like, they're just bored people
with like too much LP money flowing through them.
They're like, well, this will be kind of fun for a bit.
I can just help like make this company grow even though we're
only a bovitz is like, you know, the music man.
Well I made this argument or to feel like they can guide the
company to an exit before everybody.
Yeah, well, that's sort of like liking that's like the jet story
in certain ways. I mean, I wrote about, we work,
you know, there's a degree to, which Benchmark was perfectly
rational. I mean, this is a small amount
of money. Lie in a super charismatic guy
and he did, raise it super high valuations and you know it
there's a degree to which like, if somebody is a showman who can
keep bringing money in, even if it's sort of a disastrous
business, he can get it to a big enough.
Valuation did Benjamin's consummately lose any money on
we work, not mean, I'm I don't think so.
I mean, if at the end of the day benchmarks investment, we need
valuation that they could have realized that they didn't, you
know, like there was promise of it. we're right, but at the end
of the become, a positive Benchmark comes out, net
positive, then they weren't stands for Yeah, we just like a
very that, some part of the cold logic of investing, right,
right. Which is why.
I mean, maybe to finish up here like what was interesting about
the, you know, the reaction to Elizabeth Holmes from a lot of
people in Tech was reflexively saying, hey, there weren't that
many VCS that invested in this company, right?
I mean, there were some Angel investments from like Adam
Draper and maybe Steve jurvetson or someone like that.
But by and large the big-name funds, even the smaller funds
didn't put money in. I mean, the true People that
were scanned were like we've mentioned a million times now,
like Betsy DeVos and like, kind of old Executives at like
Walgreens and Safeway or things like that is too much Graver.
I don't you said Adam. I doesn't matter if I'm sorry.
I didn't get something, I'll let it that out.
No, you're right. Yeah.
Someone who's like no filed Adam, I'm like, they're just
right, sorry, wrong wrong. Yeah, wrong Draper, the money
Draper, not the pale Sun Draper? But yeah, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Yeah, there's a good thing to do.
Yeah, it's gone. It's gone.
I know is that I'm an idiot, but I think that, what about just
really lessons call him right? Yeah, yeah.
And I think she made a strong case and you mentioned it in
your column, which was that even if there wasn't VC money in the
company to the degree that you see in all these other ones, she
The product of the culture. She was embraced, very
wholeheartedly by The Tech Community.
Well, I remember when Jessica lessin also wrote a story
column, the First Column after the Wall Street Journal stories
about theranos came out and we had a comment from a tech
executive and want to say the name.
Who wrote that, you know, he thought this was a smear, an
absolute smear campaign from Big Pharma trying to destroy our
big. You know, try to destroy.
And we as Millennials need to stand up for it and it was like,
yeah, no, I'm pretty sure there are no.
Might actually not be on the up and up.
Yeah, there is that it was a hilarious argue with him didn't
I. But but yeah I think there's no
question at this point. It's a very strong case that she
is an avatar of, you know, everything that text stands for
whether or not she got the money.
Money and, you know, I don't think Tech won't survive a
guilty verdict or anything like that.
But there's no question that this is at least an opportunity
for the public to sort of say, yeah.
Those guys out there that seem to be raising all this money and
promising. All these great things like when
it doesn't go well there should be some sort of consequence for
Cool. Katie leave, totally.
I don't know. I don't know.
We kind of went over. I mean Katie said.
So how so maybe it maybe the woman she was arguing with
before followed her into into the just with her.
Yeah. Yeah.
Hopefully out of girl boss for Securities confiscate your
laptop. She can, you know, send the
audacity file out before she gets caught.
Yeah, cool. Well, this is our, we're
experimenting with form on dead cat were curious.
Always happy to hear feedback from people.
You can always Always. DM us on Twitter.
I'm Eric at newcomer dotco and yeah we're excited just to keep
exploring what this show is and sort of having guests.
And we're all open to guests ideas and keep listening.
Stop complaining about our audio quality working on that and poor
Tom has to edit all this. Yeah, it is a labor of love.
If you have ideas for future episodes or people that I don't
know, you think should leave the show.
Let us let us know, all right. Katie, we're just looking at a
face unzoom so really will let you know, I next episode with
what happened to her on behalf of Katie better, Eric newcomer
and Tom. Thanks for listening.
So work on Sally, goodbye. Goodbye.
Goodbye.
Goodbye, goodbye. Goodbye.