thoroughly disappointed in the Shriver interview, didn't ask any hard questions, didn't redirect after her answers, didn't really seem like she was at all fully informed about Theranos
now if John Carreyrou had been conducting the interview, that would be another thing but I get the feeling that he would never be granted an interview simply because he is much more qualified in terms of competency in Theranos and its history and science relative to Shriver that they would see him as a threat
Shriver on the other hand probably came across as a 'safe' interview to the company, which it was
real journalism is so hard to find these days, sigh
"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations."
George Orwell
When the Chicago Tribune posted an article on how they started a lawsuit for Rahm's email/text records, I almost immediately called them to tell them about the lawsuit I'd filed for his phone records about a month prior after a year long battle with FOIA/IL's Attorney General.
You'd think the person writing the article would have cared about the subject. Nope. He was just doing his job. He forwarded me to the person who did the research/foia. Left a voicemail, sent him emails.. nothin'. No response.
I then called the journalist from the reader who did the red light camera work to see if they would be interested in it. The guy was completely turned off by the fact that the answer to his, "What's making you do this?" was more or less, "It's the principal of the entire matter." and ended the call about 20 seconds later. Bah humbug, I say.
Hey man, it's life. At least 80% of people are going through the motions, and that the default rate you should expect.
Thats not a humbug fact though, because finding someone who isn't going through the motions can be explosively good. It's like, a gold mine digs up a lot of dirt, but boy is it worth it when they hit a lode.
Nah, I totally get it. In a weird way, I'm glad there's been this much resistance, considering I'm too stubborn to back away. Every time someone or something pushes back, it's another thing that gives me a chance to say "This is why shit sucks." with an opportunity at an attempt to address it.
The things I've seen and heard, the people I've met and the ungodly amount of hand typed data I've had to go through... it's nuts out there and the rabbit holes always go deep.
It makes one suspicious, to the say the least, to see someone from a politically well-connected family like Shriver interview someone similarly well-connected like Holmes. The odds are high that they know each other and have reasons to scratch each others' backs.
my high expectations for journalism dropped significantly sometime right after i started my company, because i then realized how much money it took to even be mentioned in any press, good or bad.
now if John Carreyrou had been conducting the interview, that would be another thing but I get the feeling that he would never be granted an interview simply because he is much more qualified in terms of competency in Theranos and its history and science relative to Shriver that they would see him as a threat
Shriver on the other hand probably came across as a 'safe' interview to the company, which it was
real journalism is so hard to find these days, sigh
"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations." George Orwell