That F%$#ing Paper

 As Atrios is wont to say.

The New York Times seems to be doing its level best to rehabilitate Elizabeth Holmes reputation, because they cannot believe a blond white upper class woman is a crook and a sociopath.

They attempt to cast her as just a "Good mother."

The best possible thing that could be done for Holmes' children is to make sure that they are NOT raised by her for the next 11 years:

In a new article published on Sunday titled “Liz Holmes Wants You to Forget About Elizabeth,” New York Times writer Amy Chozick details a few romantic days spent with the convicted fraudster, her husband Billy, and their two babies and dog as Holmes awaits the start of her 11-year prison sentence for corporate fraud. They all strolled around the San Diego Zoo together; they “ordered in Mexican at their quaint rental home near the Pacific;” Holmes breastfed her baby, Invicta, in front of Chozick while charmingly singing along to Ace of Base’s “All That She Wants;” they ate croissants and berries and Billy made coffee and they walked Holmes’ big dog, Teddy, together on the beach; Holmes even chased Chozick down at one point to wipe a mixture of dog slobber and sand off her shoe!!

………

This is my favorite paragraph of the piece:

I was admittedly swept up in Liz as an authentic and sympathetic person. She’s gentle and charismatic, in a quiet way. My editor laughed at me when I shared these impressions, telling me (and I quote), “Amy Chozick, you got rolled!” I vigorously disagreed! You don’t know her like I do! But then, something very strange happened. I worked my way through a list of Ms. Holmes’s friends, family and longtime supporters, whom she and Mr. Evans suggested I speak to. One of these friends said Ms. Holmes had genuine intentions at Theranos and didn’t deserve a lengthy prison sentence. Then, this person requested anonymity to caution me not to believe everything Ms. Holmes says.

(Emphasis mine)

The privilege and class blindness of New York Times staff positively buggers the mind.