[krapp]

I don't disagree with you that Vanity Fair is probably a bit anti-Thiel or anti-right in general, but I don't know what "generated" is supposed to mean in this context. I don't see a lot of mockery or ridicule in this particular article.

I also don't know what the "hit piece" part is supposed to be. He is a Trump delegate, he did finance Gawker's bankruptcy, he does espouse the ideals presented in the article, and he has invested in life-extension technologies. Can it be a hit piece if it's actually correct?

[Turing_Machine]

"He is a Trump delegate, he did finance Gawker's bankruptcy"

Both of which are totally irrelevant to the alleged topic under discussion.

[krapp]

The conflation of Thiel's libertarian ideals with his pursuit of life extension technologies was made by Thiel himself, as quoted in the same article:

     “I stand against confiscatory taxes, totalitarian collectives, 
    and the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every 
    individual,” he (Thiel) wrote in libertarian journal Cato 
    Unbound seven years ago.

The tone of the article doesn't seem to be mocking him, so I don't think it is a hit piece. If Peter Thiel does literally believe that injecting himself with the blood of young people will extend his life then blame him for that, not the people reporting it.