A Question for Christie Smythe

Elle recently ran a profile of a reporter ruined by love. The take-away? Don't fall in love with a source.

One-time Bloomberg news reporter, Christie Smythe, who was quite the heavyweight back in the day, actually broke the story of "pharma bro" Martin Shkreli's impending arrest on a securities fraud charge. As she was covering the subsequent litigation, the subject became a source, the two became intimate, and Smythe lost everything. Her marriage, her career, ... everything. She is still so devoted (to a man whom any objective observer will recognize as a classic manipulative sociopath who simply wanted some good press) that she has had her eggs frozen, imagining that she and Martin will want to have a child together upon his eventual release from prison.

He's not going to want to know your name, Ms Smythe. I know and respect your work, I'm a colleague, and I say this with respect: you've been duped.

The story interests me more because of its connection to the Shkreli case, though, than because of Smythe's personal fate.

Without wanting to shade into the manipulative-sociopath terrain of a Shkreli myself, I have to admit that some of the loose threads of the Shkreli matter continue to bug me.

Seeing Smythe in my twitter feed, discussing the story in Elle, I decided to ask her to catch me up.

I directed two linked tweets @ her. They read as follows:

Ms Smythe, could you give me a reading on the "failure to deliver" issue here? If I recall correctly, the indictment claims that Shkreli had taken a short position on Orexigen Therapeutics without ever borrowing/locating the shares. A classic "naked short" move...

I dropped out of covering the matter soon after that -- did the naked short angle play a role in the eventual conviction and sentencing or did it drop away as an irrelevance? Thanks

I'll let you know if she replies.

Happy New Year everyone.

Comments

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog