You're saying that, because it is possible that some undefined company that Coindesk previously spoke positively about may be committing fraud, their coverage of an entirely different, unrelated company that lost billions under highly suspicious circumstances should be questioned? That can't be what you're saying, right?
Instead, I'm saying that Coindesk is a stopped clock here (maybe not the clearest metaphor, I know) and knows it -- it's right about FTX but it's strange that they (and plenty of others) have been pumping lots of other highly suspect gambits and companies over the years without much reflection about it. We won't know without the benefit of hindsight which specific others are outright scams, but it seems like there may be quite a few.
You're saying that, because it is possible that some undefined company that Coindesk previously spoke positively about may be committing fraud, their coverage of an entirely different, unrelated company that lost billions under highly suspicious circumstances should be questioned? That can't be what you're saying, right?