The media is constantly whitewashing the actions of SBF because he donated his stolen funds to their political organizations. They should be ashamed!

We all here exactly know how and why FTX collapsed. We all know that SBF stole all of users funds to use them for himself and his other partners. We also know that this actions lead to millions of lives being ruined.

But many people outside of crypto do not really know what kind of a fraud SBF, FTX and Alameda Research were, why? Because the media has been in a full-time job trying to whitewash the actions of SBF and Co.

Here are some of the few examples from high-level media outlets people trust to show them the truth:

The Washington Post about FTX-collapse

I already did an entire post about this 2000-word Washington Post article (here) that is doing nothing else but show SBFs actions in a good light. They especially highlight his extensive lobbying efforts which according to them were for “pandemic prevention“ and obviously not him trying to have political connection to do whatever he wants.

Reuters about the FTX-collapse

Now here we do not even have to go further and can see that the headline of this Reuters article is already trying to really make a billion-dollar scam to fill his own pockets look like a “favour“.

Forbes article on Caroline Ellison

Forbes is also just talking good about the co-CEO of Alameda Research, Caroline Ellioson fro whom we have already seen enough videos showing how highly mishandling she was. Forbes is portraying her as a “risk-loving“ person and a “math wiz“. For your kind information Forbes, this “risk-loving“ person risked and lost all the funds of millions of people around the world.

It is clear that the media must have been paid by SBF to write such “shill-articles“ about him and his companies. Nowadays you can not even trust the biggest media outlets to tell people the simple truth of a story that made millions of peoples life worse. Thats just a shame…

reddit imagereddit imagereddit imageThe media is constantly whitewashing the actions of SBF because he donated his stolen funds to their political organizations. They should be ashamed!

50 thoughts on “The media is constantly whitewashing the actions of SBF because he donated his stolen funds to their political organizations. They should be ashamed!”

  1. Media is disingenuous? Try /r/noshitsherlock. Anyone who’s been paying attention for the last 6 years already knows this.

  2. If that scam sam and that goblin alemeda witch don’t get similar sentences like Elizabeth Holmes for fraud the politicians are corrupt.

  3. I mean, whats new?

    Do any of us still trust the media to tell an objective truth? Of course they should be ashamed of themselves. But they do shame-worthy things every day

  4. If you look back throughout your life with a critical eye you will find the media has always been there to shape the perception of the general public, not to educate or inform them.

    It wasn’t always this way, but, until enough people are aware of it, it will continue.

  5. I can’t believe this, they are not even trying to hide it anymore. They’ve so blatantly trying to change the narrative. So this is what being rich can get you

  6. These aren’t the positive articles you seem to think they are.

    They’re not “talking good” about her but giving you a profile of the woman largely responsible for that giant clusterfuck. Literally nobody likes that woman that I’m aware of.

    “We are told Jeffrey Dahmer was charming, good looking, and came across as a really nice guy. He would go to bars and had no trouble meeting young men. Only later would he be found to be eating them.”


  7. According these media, they just found themselves in the kiddle of these frauds.

    I guess what you have to do is donate money to campaigns and you get a free pass.

  8. Eh… I don’t see this as the big conspiracy theory some are making it out to be. Con artists taking advantage of a complete lack of regulations, maybe. Naive kids who thought human nature couldn’t bring down their magic money machine, maybe.

  9. >It is clear that the media must have been paid by SBF to write such “shill-articles“ about him and his companies.

    Hold on a second, partner.

    In order for it to be clear, you need to have evidence and not just speculation.

    You can say you believe they were paid, but you can’t state something is true unless you have evidence.

  10. This is why institutions shouldn’t be allowed to fund politicians. The corruption will never end due to money.

  11. This is a little silly OP. You’re not even reading the articles and giving an assessment… you’re just going by the headlines.

  12. There have also been plenty of articles fully explaining their scams and crimes. Talking about the “media” as if it’s just one outlet and not thousands of different organizations is a false narrative. I also doubt you’ve even read these articles, you just don’t like the headlines

  13. No one is whitewashing the actions, everytime i turn on phone that is all i see…not sure wth you are complaining about…everyone knows about this…

  14. I’m surprised that no one who lost big money has snapped and tried to kill him.
    John Lennon died for less.

  15. You completely missed the sarcasm on most of those articles.

    From the Reuters(called SBF “a curly hair kingpin”) one you posted:
    “As the Financial Stability Board pointed out last week, crypto exchanges have evolved to offer trading in digital coins as well as clearing, settlement, lending, custody and brokerage services. Few mainstream financial firms would be allowed to combine such a range of activities. Many crypto platforms also invest in their rivals, another regulatory taboo.”


  16. Are these articles really that positive? They still look bad. Public opinion on them isn’t going to improve no matter what anyone is going to say.

  17. That has nothing to do with donations — FWIW “Salami” donated to the opposition party.

    That’s more like they hired top-notch professional fixers.

  18. We gonna call out the msm news bias but not yours? Take each of these articles one by one, and also actually read them. Also you have to remember not everyone outside of crypto, including journalists will have this same “sbf is the most evil guy in the world” sentiment. Most people are clueless and don’t know the atmosphere within crypto about him.

    1. Washington Post One: prob worst of the three here. This article is clearly meant to highlight the different pandemic related orgs that sbf donated to. This article isn’t all positive, if you read it they called him “politically naive,” compare him to “Elizabeth holmes”, and also suggest he did all this to gain favor among politicians. They also do say he went bankrupt because of misuse of customer funds but like I said, the article itself is in the “health” section so tries to focus on the different pandemic orgs and what they do.

    2. The Reuters price. Misleading title but from what I gathered reading the whole article, the writer is like super anti crypto and is saying sbfs situation does tradfi a favor by wrecking crypto. He talks about how it will affect the legitimacy of crypto which he thinks is a good thing.

    3. Forbes. When I saw the original title for this article i though here we go again, another puff piece like the NYT did for sbf. If you read it though, it actually goes pretty accurately on what’s been known. Yes they spend maybe too much talking about her academic life and upbringing but they hit on all the things Caroline is suspected of. Just because they use “math whiz” and such words doesn’t mean they ignore calling out her crime and also her failings/stupidity.

    Conclusion: it’s really easy to read these titles and be like “msm bad he donated to dems so it must mean every news site is gonna write to make him look good.” But that’s just a naive take. I’ve seen articles from the same site where one writer writes one way, but a diff one writes different way. Also like some of these articles are “commentary” articles and not “news” articles which a lot of you can’t seem to tell apart. And also like this entire post literally sounds to me like Op only read the titles and not the actual articles.

    P.S I do think there are lots of shitty/biased msm articles on this topic, just these examples were bad choices due to clear lack of actual reading or understanding of the articles

  19. When Madoff’s ponzi came crashing down he’s was arrested almost immediately. When SBF’s ponzi came crashing down the media starts running puff pieces about all the good he did spending his customers funds and he’s still a free man. Lesson here is just be a Democrat mega donor like SBF.

  20. The entire new issue of New York Magazine was about FTX this week. It’s like, 10 articles or something like that. The collapse was above the fold at least twice this week in the times.

  21. The Washington Post, which you are criticizing, has an article saying exactly the same thing that you are saying.

  22. It is possible for people who have done bad things to also do good things. It’s not all black and white.

  23. Well Ken griffin donates all of his stolen money to the republican party and nobody says shit. He donated alot more money too. Institutions don’t report the crimes of their overlords. Democrat or republican.

  24. Not to protect FTX in any way, they deserv punishment, but they didn’t ruin the lives of millions. They peaked at 1.2 million users which sure is a lot but how many of them got their lives ruined? 1, 5, 10% I don’t know but it’s not millions. That’s mathematically impossible.

  25. None of those articles are very flattering and the ones you didn’t cherry pick are even less flattering, conspiracy nut

  26. The media is not constantly whitewashing the actions.

    If I could reply with pictures I could probably put up a hundred to your one of negative to positive coverage.

    This is why we can’t have nice things. Every time someone has a kernel of truth, they need to be hyperbolic and go guns of blazing and just say things that are demonstrably untrue or can’t be proven.

    Edit: typo

  27. Most of these publications will frame something however you want for a price.

    This is very sad to see, regardless. I guess buying all of those politicians worked?

  28. FTX played both sides of politics stop trying to make it red v blue

    It’s the 1% vs everyone else now

  29. This is a ridiculous failed attempt to politicize this matter. Sam Bankman Fried and FTX also donated to Republicans. This is a very common practice, unfortunately. Rich donate to both parties in a political race…

    Here you go, Fox News story (not a “woke” media outlet) – there are public records showing the amounts donated to Republican Political Parties in 2022 –

  30. Believe it or not out of the billions it went missing he is continuing to buy protection. Everything in this world has a price

  31. The fact people are expecting the media to be ashamed of doing their masters works is hilarious. First time? Really?

  32. It’s a joke that the headlines aren’t being bombarded with this guy being a fraudster but instead the are putting the blame on crypto. So was the 2008 housing crisis the house’s fault?

  33. Honestly, i was expecting better from them, like “Why the fall of FTX is a sign of toxic whiteness and patriarchy” or something.

  34. He donated loads to politicians. 3rd highest donor in fact. Obviously my conspiracy degen brain is thinking that I guess we know what kind of strings they can pull in the media.

  35. Plot twist- lawyer Dan Friedman was behind everything and has hidden himself behind the smokescreen of negative SBF publicity.

  36. Of course they’re going to spin it. He met with the head of the SEC. They promised him favors. The gov is Fucked if that comes to light. It shows how corrupt they are.

  37. I can assure all the people who lost money only feel one thing about SBF he is a low life scumbag

Leave a Comment