Bill Gates big reveal
Or... not. You've likely seen and heard that Bill Gates is a giant scumbag who was buddies with Epstein and that's why his wife divorced them. Between the lines people seem to be implying Gates is a child abuser.Only... where's the smoking gun? Everyone keeps saying there is all this new evidence and stuff demonstrating Gates has been lying, but then... crickets.
Check out this idiotic article by Emily Glazer on Gates, where she does her damndest to shove Gates under a bus, and fails miserably: this article.
This article is long as fuck. And it says almost nothing new.
Emily's profile on WSJ says: "Emily Glazer is a Pulitzer Prize-winning enterprise reporter focusing on business leaders".
Oh really. More like just another random hack throwing shit at wealthy philanderers. Sure Gates did naughty stuff. No denying. His wife divorced him over it.
There is not, though, any actual evidence public that I've seen demonstrating anything beyond that. If there is, show it to me.
Why is Emily writing such a pathetic article as if it is some great condemning article revealing just how bad Bill Gates is? Go read the fucking thing. It's a joke.
Is this what professional journalism has devolved to? Shit slinging where the shit is more like mud because no shit could be found? Come on now.
I don't even like Bill Gates or Microsoft. Rather the opposite. I can't stand either. But if there is going to be an article by a supposedly reputable source saying Bill Gates has been found to be nasty, show me the evidence. Don't blather on and on and on and on and on and then leave me with nothing besides "Bill Gates likes having sex with woman and can because he is filthy rich." That isn't news.
I'm sorry I don't have much more to say about this. There just isn't much to go on despite the many thousands of words Emily wrote about this.
As a cop out here is the AI take on this:
Or... not.
You've likely heard that Bill Gates is a giant scumbag who was buddies with Epstein. Depending on who is telling the story, the implication ranges from "serial philanderer" all the way to "probably involved in Epstein's crimes."
Only where is the smoking gun?
Everyone keeps saying there is all this new evidence proving Gates lied about his relationship with Epstein. Everyone keeps saying the walls are closing in. Everyone keeps saying the revelations are devastating.
Then you read the actual articles.
Take Emily Glazer's recent Wall Street Journal piece on Gates.
The article is long as hell.
It is packed with references to fallout, concern, scrutiny, reputational damage, internal unrest, employee reactions, investor worries, conference invitations, documentary production, image management, public relations staff, polling data, and organizational anxiety.
What it is not packed with is evidence.
The article repeatedly alludes to Justice Department files.
Wonderful.
Show me what's in them.
Not "the files reveal a more complicated picture."
Not "the files challenge previous claims."
Not "the files raise new questions."
Show me the actual evidence.
What specifically did Gates say that was false?
What specifically do the files prove?
What specifically did Gates do?
The article never seems particularly interested in answering those questions.
Instead it spends thousands of words describing reactions to alleged wrongdoing rather than establishing the wrongdoing itself.
Bill Gates had affairs?
Everybody already knows that.
His marriage collapsed?
Everybody already knows that too.
He met Epstein multiple times?
That has been public knowledge for years.
So where is the revelation?
If there is evidence that Gates participated in criminal conduct, publish it.
If there is evidence that Gates knew about Epstein's crimes and assisted him, publish it.
If there is evidence that Gates abused anyone, publish it.
If there is evidence that Gates lied, show exactly what he said and exactly what proves it was false.
Otherwise stop writing articles that read like a movie trailer for evidence that never arrives.
I don't even like Bill Gates.
I certainly don't like Microsoft.
But journalism is supposed to be more than implication, insinuation, and guilt by atmosphere.
The article spends page after page trying to convince me that Bill Gates is terrible.
It never quite gets around to proving it.