In the feature, “Liz Holmes Wants You to Forget About Elizabeth,” the convicted fraudster was described by writer Amy Chozick as “an authentic and sympathetic person” and a “devoted mother” who has been “volunteering for a rape crisis hotline” for the past year. “She didn’t seem like a hero or a villain. She seemed, like most people, somewhere in between,” Chozick writes. The piece came under scrutiny for, among other things, being overly credulous, which Chozick acknowledges in the piece, admitting that her own editor—business editor Ellen Pollock—had called her out for getting “rolled.” …

Part of the conceit of Chozick’s story was being swept up by this version of Holmes, just as Theranos board members and investors had been by another persona. But multiple Times journalists I spoke to felt that such asides and caveats were not enough to salvage the article or justify its framing. As one put it: “Why tell readers that a New York Times editor thought a reporter was too credulous, and then use the story to prove it?” Or as another put it: “You have to ask, on our side, what the hell happened here?”

[This might be more legit than the complaints over the Tom Cotton op-ed. It still paints an editorial/management clique out of touch with their reporters, and oddly weak in managing them, too. And as much of a villain Elizabeth Holmes may or may not be, being fair in a personal profile should be a standard, too. — Ed]