But I agree it's a bit off. For example it's OK for the NYT to mention that SBF is a genius and that he's an effective altruist in headlines as long as his ponzi is not exposed, but as soon as it's exposed, suddenly no mention of "effective altruism" (despite several people from that movement personally and illegally benefiting from "donations" from SBF [1]) nor any mention of "genius" anymore.

We're kind of used to headlines working that way.

[1] even years and maybe even decades later there's hope some of these funds shall be clawed back from these people though (people who suddenly now have a very low profile)