Journalists are still telling stories about her too, for better or for worse. Holmes is not naive, nor are most readers of The New York Times. While last weekend’s “a hero or a villain” coverage may be said to have betrayed the patients who were harmed by her inaccurate blood tests, and the memory of a Theranos employee who died by suicide, it is also just another entry in the expanded universe of Holmes-themed entertainment. There are books and podcasts and feature-length documentaries. A TV miniseries about Holmes has a score of 89 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. (“Addictively engrossing!” “Consistently entertaining!”) Surely some of those who now bemoan the Times’ friendly treatment have consumed this material for less-than-academic reasons.
The prosaic details of a convicted cheat’s domestic life aren’t really news, but they are interesting—because the character of Elizabeth Holmes is interesting. So, too, are her continued efforts to spin a narrative of who she is. But with such well-trodden ground, the irony is built right in. You know that Holmes is a scammer. I know it. On some level, The New York Times seems to know it too; the article runs through her crimes and even quotes a friend of Holmes’s who says she isn’t to be trusted. This isn’t character rehabilitation; it’s content. We’re all waiting to see what Liz gets up to next. Have the media learned their lesson? The real test will arrive when the next scientific scammer comes along, and the one after that—when their narrative is still intact, and their fraud hasn’t yet been revealed. At that point, the system for preventing errors will have to do its work.


Why do people still care about the Elizabeth Holmes story? What does the writer say is the real test? 
The Elizabeth Holmes story is still interesting to its viewers because she can still captivate an audience. The TV miniseries about Holmes was likely viewed by people for entertainment reasons, even though they have bemoaned her positive portrayal in The New York Times. Her interest in spinning a narrative about who she is is also captivating. Everyone knows that she's still a scammer, but the content is still holding viewers, which is more important. 

The writer says the real test is when the next scientific scammer arises and their narrative hasn't been compromised and their fraud hasn't yet been revealed. At that point, the system for preventing errors will be tested.