New York Times erases Garry Tan's 'die slow' tweet explosion

The Point: The New York Times Magazine published a story that glowingly depicted Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan as a paragon of mental health success thanks to executive coaching.

But the story left out a crucial detail: Tan is the CEO who made headlines for getting drunk and tweeting "die slow" at seven members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in January.

That's one hell of a fact to leave out of a piece that positioned executive "coaching" as an alternative to real therapy. Is Tan really a poster child for good CEO behavior in 2024?

It gets worse...

The Backstory: Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan regularly appears in this newsletter. He's the tech CEO spearheading a campaign to take over San Francisco City Hall in November. In January, the self-described "Twitter menace" made international headlines after he got drunk and tweeted "die slow" at seven members of the Board of Supervisors.

Afterward, Tan issued an apology. But he quickly resumed his toxic behavior. On X-Twitter, he regularly attacks politicians and journalists (using terms like "parasite") and boosts defamatory and sometimes violent content.

In contrast, most CEOs don't behave in this way.

But never mind the facts: Last weekend the NYT magazine ran a freelance story that completely whitewashed Tan's behavior. The story, “How Coaching Became Silicon Valley’s Hack for Therapy" by Daniel Duane did the following:

1. Positioned coaching as an alternative to therapy (a Silicon Valley "hack" that avoids the lengthy education and training required of actual therapists).
2. Highlighted a coaching company, Torch, as a model with the power to disrupt traditional therapy (by replacing it with coaching).
3. Glowingly depicted Garry Tan as someone who overcame his personal challenges and "multigenerational trauma" through various forms of coaching before assuming his current position.

Making matters worse, the founder of Torch was also Tan's personal coach – and Tan was a seed investor in the company.

So you have a story that glowingly portrays Torch as an innovative company offering a successful product (coaching) to rival traditional therapy. And the story positions one of the company’s seed investors, Tan, as a major success story. But it omits any mention of his major public meltdown – a pretty relevant detail given that the subject is mental health and personal growth.

Instead, Duane's piece describes Tan as a "coaching evangelist" and paints a picture in which even certified therapists are abandoning traditional practice for coaching, apparently because tech companies can pay more than real patients.

"Silicon Valley does have a history of disrupting legacy industries (see: taxis), but maybe something more interesting was going on, too," writes Duane. "Maybe tech was reinventing psychotherapy in its own image — calling forth a new form of counseling tailor-made for contemporary fears and dreams."

Analysis: This smells like something cooked up in a tech PR shop.

Personal Note: I am not one of those people who incessantly criticizes the New York Times. Honestly, I love the NYT and am a longtime subscriber.

Even in my struggling post-college days, when I was mopping floors and whatnot, I still found a way to get my hands on the paper. I’ve even written for the NYT on a few proud occasions.

As a mature reader, I do not expect to agree with every piece. This being said, criticizing our newspapers and demanding better when they mess up is an important part of the process.

Duane's story lacks important context. It portrays Tan as someone who solved his anger and "rage-quitting" problems with the help of coaching. It describes him as someone who previously "blew up at people" but allegedly "stabilized his behavior and mood" with coaching before he became Y Combinator's CEO.

As anyone in San Francisco knows, this is complete fiction.

Attn: NYT Corrections Desk

For the record, here’s the request for correction I sent to the NYT:

Dear Editors,

The story headlined “How Coaching Became Silicon Valley’s Hack for Therapy" (NYT Magazine, Aug. 11) contains a glaring and significant error that deserves correction.

The piece touts the benefits of unregulated coaching in lieu of actual therapy. It highlights a company, Torch, founded by a counselor named Cameron Yarbrough with funding from Y Combinator.

As an example of Mr. Yarbrough's coaching success, the piece highlights Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan, suggesting that he is someone who conquered his anger and "multigenerational trauma" with help from Mr. Yarbrough. Mr. Tan is portrayed as a healthy and well-balanced individual who has seriously benefited from 15 years of such coaching.

But this portrayal omits a key fact: Last January, Mr. Tan made international headlines after getting drunk and tweeting “die slow” at progressive elected leaders in San Francisco. Mr. Tan's public explosion came after two years during which Mr. Tan built a reputation as a self-described "Twitter menace" who regularly engages in harsh and threatening online communication. Mr. Tan was forced to hire a crisis PR firm and issue a public apology.

The omission of this episode is extremely conspicuous. Mr. Tan’s public, violent and alcohol-fueled meltdown undermines the premise of the entire piece. He's the last person any rational person would pick as an example of successful therapeutic intervention.

Most CEOs never have a public meltdown like Mr. Tan's. Anyone familiar with his public persona would find it shocking to see him held up as an exemplar of the reforms possible with therapy/coaching.

At the very least, the author should have acknowledged Mr. Tan's violent public outburst as an episode of backsliding during a long journey to wellness. Instead, the episode is completely omitted. This is a shocking breach of journalistic standards because it gives readers a distinctly false impression of both Mr. Tan and his coaches.

But there's an even deeper ethical problem. Mr. Tan was the seed investor in Torch. So here we have a piece that a) positions unregulated coaching as a valid alternative to real therapy and b) highlights Mr. Tan as an example of coaching success without mentioning the violent outburst that made him famous – while c) promoting a company in which Mr. Tan is a direct investor. 

Imagine running a story about a successful treatment for alcoholism that fails to mention that its main success story (and key investor) recently got a DUI. Imagine running a story about a company that treats drug addiction without mentioning that its main success story (and key investor) recently got busted with drugs. That's pretty much what this piece does.

As a journalist who has covered Mr. Tan and is familiar with his behavior, I'd say this version of him qualifies as straight-up disinformation (for example, he recently boosted a tweet that showed a masked man pointing a gun at the mayor of Oakland). 

The New York Times is the most influential newspaper in the world. This piece will undoubtedly boost the fortunes of Torch (and its seed investor, Garry Tan). Readers – especially those who may seek out Torch's unregulated services after reading this glowing profile – deserve the full story, not a whitewashed portrayal that leaves out a major and relevant fact. 

 Please correct the record.