I found it did have substance. The substance was that he is also a human being, and also flawed in his personal life.

That takes nothing away from his work in my point of view.

I don't understand why we hold impossible standards of perfection and sainthood to successful people.

Would you or I or anyone look less flawed if they went for us like that? Why believe ny mag? How would the author of that piece look under similar treatment? What consequences are there if the article is shown to be full of half truths and lies? By my reckoning, none. That makes it a hit piece.

He may be deeply flawed, he may not be at all. I have no opinion on it and lack the necessary information to form one, even if i wanted to.

NY mag’s reputation is the one damaged here in my eyes.

If you put yourself in the public eye I think you are inviting more scrutiny.

Is this the article everyone is referring to?

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/andrew-huberman-podc...

To me that is pretty much the definition of a hit piece.

Scanning through it, the allegations I spotted are:

* He is flaky and often doesn't keep appointments. * One guy says he invited him to go camping but didn't turn up * Apparently he may have slightly misled his ex about where he lived in private messages * His ex says that he has anger (purely verbal) issues * Some other people all say he has anger issues * Some incredibly spurious allegations that he had an affair

I probably missed some. But notably, almost nowhere is there any attempt to tell Huberman's side or have any empathy for him as a human being. Hence, it's a hit piece.

He tells stories about himself publicly and regularly. He has a forum to defend himself and gets value from what he does.

I see no indication that they approached him for comment, fitting your ‘hit piece’ comment, but does that matter? Is he off limits for some reason?

I would look much more flawed. I could not withstand the scrutiny of fame.

I do not see his reputation as damaged, I just acknowledge that he is not perfect, something I was sure about beforehand.

Can I know whether the information presented in the article is factual ? Of course not. Is it single sided or even intentionally harming ? Could definitely be.

> Even Andrew Huberman, one of the most popular health science podcasters, has dabbled into anti-EMF quackery. On one podcast he claimed that his Bluetooth headphones produced notable "heat effects", implying that the electromagnetic energy was enough to produce palpable heat in his body.

If this is true it take a lot away from his work in my point of view.