The New York Times was trolled on social media for its latest piece on Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes. The former biotechnology entrepreneur was convicted of fraud in 2022.

NYT author Amy Chozick starts the story, titled: Liz Holmes Wants You to Forget About Elizabeth, by talking about Holmes prepping for prison. ‘Soft, slightly low, but totally unremarkable’ are the first adjectives used for the 39-year-old’s voice.

Also Read | Allen Outlet Mall, Dallas shooting brings up second amendment, gun control debate in Greg Abott and Ted Cruz’s Texas

Holmes last month delayed the start of her 11-year prison sentence. She appealed a previous decision that would have required her to turn herself in on April 27. She is currently out on bail. Her lawyers informed US district judge Edward Davila that she will not report to prison as per the schedule.

She is appealing Davila’s ruling that she remains in custody while it is determined whether she should get a new trial.

Also Read | Fontayne Payton: Witness described Allen Outlet Mall shooting after photo of suspect goes viral

Chozick is quick to bring up Holmes’ partner Billy Evans and 20-month-old son William in her piece which seems a subtle attempt to humanize a convict who misled her investors as head of the failed blood-testing firm.

Elizabeth Holmes was indicted in 2018. Her trial went on for years and now she lives with her partner and two children in their $135m estate in Silicon Valley.

Social media users are not happy with The New York Times for ‘romanticizing’ Holmes. Some are also calling the article ‘a puff piece’.

Also Read | Hatay, Turkey accident: At least 12 killed, 31 injured in multi-vehicle crash

“Why is media often in the practice of romanticizing a certain type of criminal? A very unserious puff piece on Elizabeth Holmes,” a Twitter user said.

“As a reporter who covered both Theranos and the entire Elizabeth Holmes trial, the last line of the New York Times story is wrong. It is possible to be in her presence and not completely believe her. Questioning is what we do for a living,” another one, a news reporter, added.

“What everyone knows is that Elizabeth Holmes is a fraud, but what the New York Times presupposes is maybe she isn’t?” a third one pointed out.