Michael Lewis’s fiery interview on Sam Bankman-Fried | Media Confidential

[@timherron6922]

The best part of the interview is the last 10 minutes. I first met Michael in 1993 when he was talking about Barbarians at the Gate. Not all of his books are great but I do have much respect for him and author and someone who does his homework.

[@biercenator]

The point on access isn't, as framed and as angrily denied by Lewis, one of access to the subject (SBF). It's access to those who move in the social circles that Lewis frequents. Consider the backlash Tom Wolfe suffered from Radical Chique and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers. The criticism would be that Lewis seems like a guy that isn't willing to cut against the grain of his class, which was taken in, as a class, by the SBF promise of a guilt-free money machine.

[@biercenator]

Listening further, and yeah, Lewis set out to write not in praise of Sam, but to comfort and protect the reputation of his (Lewis') social peers.

[@biercenator]

Oh wow. Anthropic is part of another bubble. One buzz chasing another. I'm not liking this guy.

[@BanTheBBCHD]

Sam Bankman-Fried was a gambler who gambled on winning big on investment bets for his own benefit by using his customer's money. He lost and has rightly been sentenced to prison for 25 years. That's it Michael.

[@elainerempel1613]

What "fiction" has Michael Lewis written? The host Lionel Barber said "you've written best-selling novels". No, he's written meticulously researched best-selling nonfiction. The Fifth Risk is particularly relevevant now, with Trump axing solid people because they won't subscribe to the Big Lie.

[@clausvind8010]

I read Lewis for his writing. "Liars Poker" which I highly recommend, gives a very fictionalized and skewed, 'American', story of how Real Estate ABSs were invented by Lew Ranieri, when in fact the concept has been around since 1795 in Denmark (after a fire burned down a large part of Copenhagen) and Germany(Prussia) . Lewis worked in London, so I'm pretty sure he knew this.

[@CrabbyE8]

I do think that podcasting offers an opportunity for long form journalism to return.

[@trs4437]

I’m a fan of the book, actually read it. The negative reviews I’ve read don’t seem to be about the same book, which leads me to believe that the reviewers who wrote them probably didn’t read the book. Lewis is pretty hard on SBF and effective altruism. Maybe younger readers/reviewers don’t get the implicit criticism and the irony.

[@DethWench]

9:00 I’m a writer and criticism is part of writing, as is responding to criticism. I found Lewis very unprofessional on this point.

[@elainerempel1613]

But he's absolutely right that people blow off steam with a nasty comment on social media & then they're just entrenched in that without exercising any curiosity & without doing any research.

[@ZeroFilmClips]

Nobody has to be respectful in their response to critics. Critics would like to think they are above being criticised themselves, but they are not, especially critics who try to delegitimise someone else's work. There's nothing unprofessional about robustly rebutting criticism.

[@loki_of_earth]

$125 cents on the dollar. Is that based on the price of the crypto at insolvency. If so, it doesnt mean people get 125% back. They still lose big.

[@joraxani]

Michael Lewis calling bullshit is amazing.

[@elainerempel1613]

"Who Is Government". I'm looking forward to that.

[@elainerempel1613]

Michael Lewis's interview by Alastair & Rory on "The Rest Is Politics" is better.

[@David_Best]

These two arrogant interrogators are intellectual fools searching for notoriety. What a crock. I have read every book Michael as written, and never have I felt that he was anything but totally informed and impartial.

[@richardthurston2171]

Interesting. I have very much enjoyed Lewis’ work over the years. I’ll give this one a go. Similar criticisms were raised over The Blind Side a few years back.

[@DavidBrake]

It did seem to me that the interviewers were coming at Lewis pretty hard out of the gate... until I started reading book critics and realized nearly all of them shared the sense that Michael Lewis didn't have a good critical distance from SBF.

[@tommcfadden5232]

Lewis sounds a bit thinned skinned.

[@ianhawthorne4609]

a bit?

[@phillylifer]

Respectfully, identifying a why or what mechanism did this party lack or possess to take risk and defraud people is better left to professionals. Do you want to conjure a reason and then input that into the heads of formative minds? Stuck to what you learned, what you were struck by and stay away from psychology.

[@vp0029]

Would love to read the Michael Lewis book on masayoshi son and softbank

[@charlesovenstone2558]

Hindsight bias is 20/20

[@noname-qb7ir]

Lewis is wrong that nobody saw it coming. Sam Trabuco left the hedgefund as co-ceo in Aug 2022 and co-operated.

[@dub604]

It seems that Michael Lewis takes himself a little too seriously.

[@War4theWest]

Wow, you idiots really mishandled this interview. I am half way through and neither of you have offered anything to question Lewis's take. Worse? You smug hacks seem to think you are the arbiter of 'truth' without offering any. It's bizarre.

[@cmep]

Michael Lewis didn't come off well here. He should have known better, as a financial reporter with dozens of years of experience, that to believe in crypto and Sammy B*@(# F*!^. That's why people wrote bad reviews of his book. You don't give credence to a bad idea. He should have ignore it. Bad ideas do not have rights or the need to be investigated, especially when they are so terribly, honestly, bad. It was either naïveté on his part or plain boredom that led to this book.

[@tommcfadden5232]

Dull interview.

[@treyquattro]

seemed like the interlocutors - non-Rusbridger particularly - were envious of Lewis's success. The "I'm rich" comment can't have helped!

[@bigdaddychacha]

An occasionally contentious but overall largely interesting interview. Has Michael Lewis gotten too close to his subject this time? Perhaps, but I’m still curious to read it, or, failing that, wait until the inevitable film adaptation. Can Jesse Eisenberg do a fat suit?

[@treyquattro]

his books - on finance and tech - are always a good read, and better than any film adaptation IMHO.

[@ExiledGypsy]

Wow, talk about defensive and arrogance. Calling people idiots is hardly an intelligent response about people whose job was not to get to know the subject for a year. It is the author's job to justify his reluctance to make moral judgement compared to the judiciary who never consider the most of us are victims of our circumstances, genetics, and upbringing. The judiciary is under the illusion that we are all 100% responsible for all out actions when neuroscience and evolutionary biology has proven absence of free will. However, you can't expect readers to know the subject of the book as much as the author. I empathized with his point view until the exhibition of his arrogance. There seems to be contradiction between his empathetic approach to his subject and his behavior on screen.

[@abbyabroad]

Wow, to go ad hominem and to use such loaded language while crossing his chest so defensively is NOT a good look. I suppose I should read the book but to automatically label anyone who disagrees with him an "ignorant audience" is incredibly off-putting. I have read his works in the past, but to know that if I disagree with his portrayal, I am automatically labeled uneducated and foolish is quite a turn-off. To opine that NO ONE can understand the subject like HE CAN is what people say of abusive partners, not criminals they are profiling with full awareness of what he's done. When he's saying that his first thought was "This was so dumb," he sounds like a father embarrassed for a son, not an impartial or honest reporter. Finally, the whole vibe of SBF and his victims reminds me of the woman who tricked older, famous investors into investing in her medical blood device that never worked. Men in Lewis's sphere. I think that older people are struggling to admit that they do not understand the new tech, and that their ignorance and willingness to buy in to charisma over genuine comprehension has led them to look like fools. Lewis has a massive chip on his shoulder here and it's sad to see after his other well-written books.

[@treyquattro]

I've read all of Michael Lewis's books relating to finance and tech, going back to Liar's Poker in the 80s. As much as I enjoyed Going Infinite (and will likely re-read it), I couldn't help thinking, in the early parts of the book especially, that Lewis had somewhat come under SBF's spell. much more so than any protagonist (if SBF can be called that - subject maybe) of any of the other Michael Lewis books I've read. That said, I probably came away with a more positive impression of SBF than most, although I tend to think that EA is a cynical ploy to delude oneself into thinking they're pursuing wealth for other than the usual reasons. I was less impressed by the people surrounding SBF. I do think that it's a miscarriage of justice that a talented and smart individual like Sam should be wasting away in prison for 25 years when, with some guidance, he could be benefiting society. Everyone got their money back in the end.

[@Troll-hj8gu]

Reading the book currently and so far it makes for an interesting read

[@fminc]

nice1. Subbed.