On May 7, The New York Times published a profile article about Theranos fraudster Elizabeth Holmes–who has now adopted a new persona of being a devoted mother–which was met with much criticism from readers and from other media outlets.
In the article titled ‘Liz Holmes Wants You To Forget About Elizabeth,’ Holmes was described as “normal.” The article also went over the different personas of the then-‘Elizabeth’, who is known for her crimes, and the now-‘Liz’, a mother whom the author described as authentic and sympathetic.
Holmes is infamously known for being the CEO of biotech company Theranos, whose claimed ‘revolutionary’ invention turned out to be a fraudulent machine. Theranos was found falsifying information and putting out deceptive statements regarding the precision of the company’s blood-testing technology. She was convicted on four counts of defrauding investors.
The article received major backlash from other media outlets, with some stating that it glorified and condoned Holmes for what she has done.
An article published in the American political magazine, Jacobin, slammed the Times for this stunt, implying that the Times will write well about you even if you aren’t. “If you find yourself having fallen from grace in the public eye because you allegedly committed colossal fraud for years, as Elizabeth Holmes did, fear not: the New York Times is ready to dedicate 5,000 fawning words to you,” they wrote.
Australia’s number one commercial news site, News.Com.Au, also published a scathing opinion piece, with the writer stating that this is an implication of letting a powerful personality use their influence to fund their luxury and fame. “People like this persist because we let them. They thrive on our hunger for idols. It’s an appetite for humiliation, and it never seems to fade,” they wrote.
Online users are also not fond of the article, saying that the Times is only boosting Holmes’ fraudulent behavior.
Shoplifters/scammers are seen as scum but somehow Elizabeth Holmes, who stole millions, gets a sympathetic article written on her as she awaits prison. The NY Times is trash https://t.co/5qIzNocZdV
— excursions (@_stilldreaming_) May 7, 2023
I cannot. I simply cannot. The New York Times is simply unserious. We're rebranding Elizabeth Holmes now? Mediocre scammer white women really CAN have it all, can't they?! pic.twitter.com/rdfD3vZrT6
— Kate Hudson (@HudsonKate) May 7, 2023
the Elizabeth Holmes article is such a perfect snapshot of everything wrong with our society
nobody ever wants to admit they fell for a con (especially from a KNOWN CON ARTIST!) so they simply invent a fake reality where there was no con to fall for to continue feeling smart
— Claire Willett (@clairewillett) May 8, 2023
Meanwhile, a published article on Fortune.com, asserts that no one is buying this rebrand.
It can be remembered that in 2022, The New York Times wrote a lengthy piece on Elizabeth Holmes’ past and present leading up to her criminal trial, titled ‘The Epic Rise And Fall of Elizabeth Holmes.’
Other POP! stories that you might like: