Elizabeth Holmes' PR campaign continues(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Elizabeth Holmes' PR campaign continues
https://www.theverge.com/news/611549/elizabeth-holmes-people-jailhouse-interview
56 comments
> wondering about why
It’s likely a mix of several things:
1. Society’s fascination with “big crime”, especially fraud—figures like Frank Abagnale, Anna Delvey, Jordan Belfort, and obviously Holmes herself have all been turned into popular films or TV series.
2. She has a knack for “branding” and generating a cult of personality, even if (maybe because) her ethics are nonexistent.
3. She seems to have landed on some financial stability through her spouse, which I’m sure is being used in small amounts for things like this.
4. In a strange way, she appears eager to redeem herself. An ethical person might do this through charity or similar means, but for her, being seen as a “titan of industry” likely equates to redemption.
Your observation isn’t off—I wouldn’t be surprised if she launches some kind of lifestyle brand after her release.
It’s likely a mix of several things:
1. Society’s fascination with “big crime”, especially fraud—figures like Frank Abagnale, Anna Delvey, Jordan Belfort, and obviously Holmes herself have all been turned into popular films or TV series.
2. She has a knack for “branding” and generating a cult of personality, even if (maybe because) her ethics are nonexistent.
3. She seems to have landed on some financial stability through her spouse, which I’m sure is being used in small amounts for things like this.
4. In a strange way, she appears eager to redeem herself. An ethical person might do this through charity or similar means, but for her, being seen as a “titan of industry” likely equates to redemption.
Your observation isn’t off—I wouldn’t be surprised if she launches some kind of lifestyle brand after her release.
> An ethical person might do this through charity or similar means, but for her, being seen as a “titan of industry” likely equates to redemption.
She knows what country she is in, at least.
She knows what country she is in, at least.
> I think it’s bad that she defrauded so many people but still has massive enough cash that she’s paying a PR firm while she’s in prison.
Pretty sure she doesn't have any money herself as she has been declared insolvent. However, her husbond is heir to 3 luxury hotels. And she doesn't come from a poor background either.
Pretty sure she doesn't have any money herself as she has been declared insolvent. However, her husbond is heir to 3 luxury hotels. And she doesn't come from a poor background either.
"So the lesson here is to suck, lie, and be a mean person and you still walk away with cash."
Only a person who themselves exhibits those qualities or someone cynical to the point of foolishness would conclude that is the lesson. Nothing indicates that walking away with cash cannot be achieved without sucking, lying and being mean.
The lesson is that a person who does what Holmes did may get caught and may suffer consequences. She has two young kids. She sits in prison as they grow up.
Only a person who themselves exhibits those qualities or someone cynical to the point of foolishness would conclude that is the lesson. Nothing indicates that walking away with cash cannot be achieved without sucking, lying and being mean.
The lesson is that a person who does what Holmes did may get caught and may suffer consequences. She has two young kids. She sits in prison as they grow up.
Her life is like a Hallmark movie: Convicted to prison, meets a 10 years younger partner just on time, and surprise, surprise, he happens to be a Hotel chain heir... :-)
>“I’m not the same person I was back then,” Holmes tells People, vaguely saying that “there are things I would have done differently.” She still insists Theranos was a failure, not a fraud.
So ... same person? "would have done differently" seems like a very empty statement, what could it possibly mean? Just not get caught?
The amazing thing about all this is her company apparently had nothing of value, not even an idea anyone that some company chose to buy after the fact.
So ... same person? "would have done differently" seems like a very empty statement, what could it possibly mean? Just not get caught?
The amazing thing about all this is her company apparently had nothing of value, not even an idea anyone that some company chose to buy after the fact.
"Why Elizabeth Holmes Was On Trial and Mark Zuckerberg Wasn’t" (2021) - https://archive.is/jbrjw
[deleted]
The People subtitle reminds us she has a fraud conviction and the first paragraph objectively calls her “disgraced” while reporting that Holmes maintains her innocence.
What would The Verge prefer? To be any more explicit would require openly calling Holmes out of her mind. I’m quite capable of reading that between the lines.
What would The Verge prefer? To be any more explicit would require openly calling Holmes out of her mind. I’m quite capable of reading that between the lines.
I don't know what the Verge would prefer, but I'd prefer that People not run a PR fluff piece that is obviously part of her plan to convince people she's not a piece of shit. They're not reporting news or commenting on some new development. There's nothing informative to be reported. It's just a PR piece.
Trying to pull a Michael Milken. Her husband has money, so she probably will succeed in the long run.
> the emphasis is on Holmes as a mother, and how hard it is for her to be away from her children.
Many mothers are in prison for far less, don't believe she should get a free pass.
Many mothers are in prison for far less, don't believe she should get a free pass.
She was a fraud and deserved to be convicted. But, I also think she was over sentenced because she pulled one over on and embarrassed a bunch of rich guys.
She should have been given life, she played with other people's lives and livelihoods for personal gain.
I don't know about oversentenced, but indeed, apparently one can commit deliberate medical malpractice to whatever number of plebs and just be acquitted of that part.
Play with people's money and see the fangs come out.
Straight to the garbage.
"Theranos failed. But failure is not fraud"
"...she's continuing to write patents for new inventions and plans to resume her career in healthcare technology after her release."
The most charitable interpretation of her behavior is that she is still too uneducated to understand that what her company was built on could never work. There was a reason none of the traditional biotech VC's would listen to her.
And it wasn't like the fraud she perpetuated was harmless.
Then, while under indictment, she has two kids? The only ones who I feel sorry for are her children.
The sooner we stop hearing about this sociopath the better.
"...she's continuing to write patents for new inventions and plans to resume her career in healthcare technology after her release."
The most charitable interpretation of her behavior is that she is still too uneducated to understand that what her company was built on could never work. There was a reason none of the traditional biotech VC's would listen to her.
And it wasn't like the fraud she perpetuated was harmless.
Then, while under indictment, she has two kids? The only ones who I feel sorry for are her children.
The sooner we stop hearing about this sociopath the better.
Daily reminder that according to some studies roughly 4% of CEOs are sociopaths.
That's like gen pop rate nowadays though
I'm always dubious when it comes to hagiographies of individuals in media.
It feels good for someone else to point it out, since in this case it really rings hollow for basically everyone.
Why should we humanise and care about someone who was a terrible boss, a terrible fraudster and a bare-face liar.
What endeavours were not financed because of her? Who's career was torpedoed and who was stolen away from noble causes because of her lies? Taking some accountability is rare, she should, and we don't have to applaud her for it. It should be expected.
It feels good for someone else to point it out, since in this case it really rings hollow for basically everyone.
Why should we humanise and care about someone who was a terrible boss, a terrible fraudster and a bare-face liar.
What endeavours were not financed because of her? Who's career was torpedoed and who was stolen away from noble causes because of her lies? Taking some accountability is rare, she should, and we don't have to applaud her for it. It should be expected.
I keep thinking about a similarity with tech in general. Around 2010 or so the media could not stop writing articles fawning over Google and other tech companies. They placed them on such a pedestal, and in doing so, were complicit in helping them amass immense cultural capital alongside their financial capital.
It's trite at this point to say we, the readers, are part of the problem. But it does make me wonder why we keep needing to glamorize the successful. They've made it, no? Do they need to be continually propped up? Probably the human instinct for worship gone astray.
It's trite at this point to say we, the readers, are part of the problem. But it does make me wonder why we keep needing to glamorize the successful. They've made it, no? Do they need to be continually propped up? Probably the human instinct for worship gone astray.
To some extent, we should humanize bad people, because bad people are all human, and some ordinary-seeming humans are bad.
When bad people in media are only portrayed in media as stereotypical villains, it's harder to detect bad people in real life. Bystanders see a gentile, caring, vulnerable person, and they immediately assume they can't be bad, because "bad people aren't gentile, caring, or vulnerable"! Except they are, just not always.
Also, at least some people deserve a chance at forgiveness. When evil is only portrayed as black-and-white, even tiny accidents cause someone to be irredeemable, because "bad people can never do right" implies "good people can never do wrong".
That doesn't mean we should forget bad deeds and eliminate all punishment. Accepting people can be good doesn't mean unconditionally forgiving them, and forgiving =/= forgetting. Like, if Elizabeth Holmes founds another company I'd be very skeptical, and if anyone seemed to trust her I'd actively refer them to Theranos. But specifically in online discourse, moral polarization is one of the biggest issues I see today.
When bad people in media are only portrayed in media as stereotypical villains, it's harder to detect bad people in real life. Bystanders see a gentile, caring, vulnerable person, and they immediately assume they can't be bad, because "bad people aren't gentile, caring, or vulnerable"! Except they are, just not always.
Also, at least some people deserve a chance at forgiveness. When evil is only portrayed as black-and-white, even tiny accidents cause someone to be irredeemable, because "bad people can never do right" implies "good people can never do wrong".
That doesn't mean we should forget bad deeds and eliminate all punishment. Accepting people can be good doesn't mean unconditionally forgiving them, and forgiving =/= forgetting. Like, if Elizabeth Holmes founds another company I'd be very skeptical, and if anyone seemed to trust her I'd actively refer them to Theranos. But specifically in online discourse, moral polarization is one of the biggest issues I see today.
From what I've seen, progressive discourse often reduces things to systemic factors, while conservative discourse often reduces things to individual choice. As I said elsewhere, in situations like this, it's quite easy to bring a reductionist or defeatist frame to the situation. It's a shame because it's not particularly useful. I wanted to say I really enjoyed your comment a lot. Cheers.
I fully agree, but you don't need a puff piece about her for that.
We do get conversations with former convicts who are doing good things for their communities sometimes, and that is worthy of a hagiography, a proper redemption and an understanding that the person was not 1-dimensional.
Just in the interest of earnestness, there are people who are exactly as black as they are painted. I'm not sure if Holmes is one of them, she certainly had opportunities that many will never be afforded and I don't think this point can be denied. But if she wants a redemption arc then it must be earned; not paid for.
Humanising villains is important, but this is not what's happening, these pages are implying that she was wronged, that she's the victim. But it's clear as day that she is the architect of her own misery.
We do get conversations with former convicts who are doing good things for their communities sometimes, and that is worthy of a hagiography, a proper redemption and an understanding that the person was not 1-dimensional.
Just in the interest of earnestness, there are people who are exactly as black as they are painted. I'm not sure if Holmes is one of them, she certainly had opportunities that many will never be afforded and I don't think this point can be denied. But if she wants a redemption arc then it must be earned; not paid for.
Humanising villains is important, but this is not what's happening, these pages are implying that she was wronged, that she's the victim. But it's clear as day that she is the architect of her own misery.
> Why should we humanise and care about someone who was a terrible
But... the parable of the prodigal son? The whole point it makes is that we should be happy when the lost person is found. It specifically tries to talk us out of transactional relationships where we would somewhat instinctively assume that we should treat others proportionately well, compared to how well they treated us. And the point it's trying to make is that human dignity isn't something that can be measured or compared, it just is. And everyone has it, and should be treat as such.
----
The article makes it sound though as if Holmes is far from seeking absolution. So, maybe, the concept doesn't apply to her in particular. But, the answer still stands to the more general question.
But... the parable of the prodigal son? The whole point it makes is that we should be happy when the lost person is found. It specifically tries to talk us out of transactional relationships where we would somewhat instinctively assume that we should treat others proportionately well, compared to how well they treated us. And the point it's trying to make is that human dignity isn't something that can be measured or compared, it just is. And everyone has it, and should be treat as such.
----
The article makes it sound though as if Holmes is far from seeking absolution. So, maybe, the concept doesn't apply to her in particular. But, the answer still stands to the more general question.
I think the point is, we should restore the dignity of people she harmed, before we worry overmuch about restoring hers.
It seems to be rare that we get to choose whose dignity we should prioritize. The common answer to questions like this: we should choose both. Both are important.
Also, it looks like Holmes is being already punished for what she's done. So, no point of adding more on top. The frustrating aspect is that, at least according to the article, is that she still doesn't acknowledge her guilt. But, I don't think we have it in the criminal law to punish people second time if they disagree with the first punishment. It's upsetting that someone does that, but it's not a crime.
Also, it looks like Holmes is being already punished for what she's done. So, no point of adding more on top. The frustrating aspect is that, at least according to the article, is that she still doesn't acknowledge her guilt. But, I don't think we have it in the criminal law to punish people second time if they disagree with the first punishment. It's upsetting that someone does that, but it's not a crime.
If you violate trust, then you lose that trust and become less trustworthy than someone who has not yet been trusted at all.
This point should be clear to anyone. Holmes' PR team is essentially trying to get us to trust her again, more-so than she deserves for violating that trust in the first place.
It's not about stealing some rich men's money, though that is certainly reprehensible, it's about the actual abuse she presided over for her own glory, fame and fortune.
She is an example of a narcissist gaining power and she should be a lesson to those who would attempt the same.
After her time is served, she can go liver her life however she wants. She does not deserve to be trusted again.
This point should be clear to anyone. Holmes' PR team is essentially trying to get us to trust her again, more-so than she deserves for violating that trust in the first place.
It's not about stealing some rich men's money, though that is certainly reprehensible, it's about the actual abuse she presided over for her own glory, fame and fortune.
She is an example of a narcissist gaining power and she should be a lesson to those who would attempt the same.
After her time is served, she can go liver her life however she wants. She does not deserve to be trusted again.
I believe the parable makes sure that we see the prodigal son as a very bad person. They didn't have VCs and creepy CEOs back in the days when it was written, so we'd have to extrapolate from what they knew unto the present, but I'm convinced that the author wanted us to think that until the prodigal son returned to his father he was beyond redemption.
So, it's not an attempt to deny that Holmes has done evil things. And, in fact, from the article it looks like she's unrepentant... but, my answer was literally to the question as asked. Also, admittedly, you don't have to subscribe to the Christian moral codex, and may reject the notion of every human having dignity as their inalienable right. But that would require a sophisticated and substantial argument.
So, it's not an attempt to deny that Holmes has done evil things. And, in fact, from the article it looks like she's unrepentant... but, my answer was literally to the question as asked. Also, admittedly, you don't have to subscribe to the Christian moral codex, and may reject the notion of every human having dignity as their inalienable right. But that would require a sophisticated and substantial argument.
Or to be overly dramatic: "Who has committed suicide because of her lies?", because we know that answer is not zero, and a direct consequence of her modus operandi of scorched earth legal warfare with anybody who steps out of line.
I'm in favour of being, as a society, so ambitious that you want to give all criminals a second chance, and in that sense, she deserves one.
But that's not, _at all_, how the US justice system is designed. If _she_ gets a second chance, that's.. a ridiculous injustice.
I'm in favour of being, as a society, so ambitious that you want to give all criminals a second chance, and in that sense, she deserves one.
But that's not, _at all_, how the US justice system is designed. If _she_ gets a second chance, that's.. a ridiculous injustice.
How so?
Recently pardoned silk road dude got his second chance and HN largely looked favorably at that situation (I'm not attibuting this view to you here). What makes Holmes worse, if anything?
Recently pardoned silk road dude got his second chance and HN largely looked favorably at that situation (I'm not attibuting this view to you here). What makes Holmes worse, if anything?
People ascribe some kind of Robin Hood-esque virtue to Silk Road dude, even though he paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in an attempt to have 5 people murdered.
I’d rather never hear about either one ever again.
I’d rather never hear about either one ever again.
> Why should we humanise and care about someone who was a terrible
Problematic people are still people, and pretending otherwise in order to feel better about needing them out of society is maybe not a great idea.
Problematic people are still people, and pretending otherwise in order to feel better about needing them out of society is maybe not a great idea.
Liz Holmes is disgusting enough, but recently Newsweek attempted to rehab the image of one of the rapist/murderers of Dr. William Petit's family.
https://www.newsweek.com/steven-hayes-connecticut-linda-mai-...
https://www.newsweek.com/steven-hayes-connecticut-linda-mai-...
[deleted]
I think it depends a bit on how you think about rehabilitation? Many believe incarcerated people should be given a chance to get their life back on track (a difficult thing to do no matter what walk of life you come from), you may not like her methods, but she is certainly entitled to them.
She can absolutely do that without the need for obsequious front-page magazine spreads.
I know some people who went through incarceration. Their life lesson is: don't get caught. They come out of there just being better criminals, not better people.
Easy there. Anecdote != Data.
I agree that we should not be confident in anecdotes, but the statistics support the assertion for the US: The percentage of people who commit crimes again after release varies by state, time, and type of crime, but it's generally around 68% within three years.
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-common-is-it-for-released-...
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-common-is-it-for-released-...
In general it would be stupid to expect things to be different. What kind of creature gets better because of being locked up for years with a bunch of other worse-than-average creatures of it's kind?
Incarceration, if done properly, might make people less likely to reoffend simply because they get older and their health gets poorer, thus having less energy and becoming less of a nuisance. But that's not done because of insufficient prison capacity. They nearly all get out while still young enough to remain a massive problem.
Incarceration, if done properly, might make people less likely to reoffend simply because they get older and their health gets poorer, thus having less energy and becoming less of a nuisance. But that's not done because of insufficient prison capacity. They nearly all get out while still young enough to remain a massive problem.
That all may be so, but it's mighty coincidental that we are reminded of the need for rehabilitation and humane treatment and so on exactly when the convict happens to be famous and rich.
Rehabilitation is about getting your life on a different track. I'm an abolitionist but a PR campaign isn't justice or rehabilitation either.
I typically try to avoid brining a monochromatic lens to situations that I believe are anything but (99% of situations generally). I could present all sorts of recidivism stats about violent criminals, including ones on the same life path, but differently, would it sway you? The only people I know personally who have been to jail are the people I've worked with via TLM, but I certainly don't profess to be an expert on the penal system in any way whatsoever. In matters of luck of life, it's quite easy to bring a reductionist or defeatist frame to the situation. (I think conversations like this are often worth having, I'm not trying to cause a flame war or anything like that.)
Somehow I think if someone has the resources to have the times and people write puff pieces about them, they probably don't need all that much of our help for rehabilitation. We're not talking about someone going back out on the streets here. The a is a powerful member of the capital class with connections and influence.
She is doing her part in improving healthcare for everyone. Which is to do nothing and stay in jail.
[deleted]
xyzzyfoobar(1)
I think it’s bad that she defrauded so many people but still has massive enough cash that she’s paying a PR firm while she’s in prison. So the lesson here is to suck, lie, and be a mean person and you still walk away with cash.
If she ends up launching a Gwyneth Paltrow-type style brand after release, I’m going to weep a little bit.