After the New York Times was accused of writing favorable articles about disgraced FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried and inviting him to speak at the news outlet’s Dealbook summit, it is once again coming under fire for publishing a “dealing article.” success” about bitcoin mining. The authors of the article claim that bitcoin mining is harmful to the environment, while the editorial also alleges that one of the authors went to great lengths to investigate the story. However, bitcoin advocates disagree with the premise of the article, arguing that the Times reporter did not use current data. They also argue that the story was one-sided, with virtually zero opposing views.
Bitcoin Users Respond To NYT Article On Bitcoin Mining: “Sometimes Clicks Are More Important Than The Truth”
The New York Times (NYT) is coming under fire on social media after several well-known bitcoin advocates claimed the publication published a one-sided article to further propaganda. This is not the first time the Times has been accused of lacking journalistic integrity and being a mouthpiece for the establishment. In mid-November 2022, the publication was accused of writing a “scoop piece” about former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) and inviting him to speak at the company’s Dealbook Summit event. On April 10, NYT reporter Gabriel Dance published an editorial titled “The Real Costs of the Digital Rush for Bitcoin.”
In its editorial, Dance focuses on bitcoin mining in the United States and claims that 85% of US-based miners use fossil fuels for energy. The report also looks at the state of Texas and the 34 bitcoin mines located in the region. Although Dance misspells the name of one of Texas Bitdeer’s bitcoin mines, his findings suggest that bitcoin mining is harmful to the environment and “in some areas, this has led to higher prices.” However, despite the author’s claims, some bitcoin enthusiasts have denounced the article as propaganda. Satoshi Act Fund CEO and co-founder Dennis Porter was among those who criticized the Times article.
“The NYT hit piece dropped and it’s everything we hoped for. It is sad to see the NYT attack bitcoin mining despite the incredible reach of our community to participate and share the other side of the story,” Porter said in a statement. cheep. “Sometimes the clicks are more important than the truth.” In another tweet, Porter emphasized that the “NYT couldn’t even take the time to verify the city where bitcoin mining takes place. “It’s Rockdale, Texas, not Rockland. These are not serious people, ”he said. aggregate.
Alex Gladstein, director of strategy at the Human Rights Foundation, also criticized the NYT article for not mentioning the benefits of bitcoin. “The new NYT article on mining is full of misinformation, but what is most surprising is that it makes no attempt to describe to the reader what Bitcoin actually does around the world,” Gladstein tweeted. “This is intentional. If you don’t understand the value of bitcoin, then of course you think it’s a waste of energy.” Others have found fault with the NYT and Dance methodology and data. For example, bitcoin supporter Troy Cross opined that the methodologies of the climate activist daniel liston and the NYT are “totally different.”
A climate activist claims that the emission levels quoted in the NYT are overestimated on average by 81.7%
Batten is an environmental, social and governance (ESG) analyst, investor in climate technology, and known for his research on the environmental impact of bitcoin mining. After the NYT article was published, Batten also discredited the research done by the newspaper and the author. Ribbon it states that the NYT article greatly exaggerates the use of fossil fuels and argues that people “shouldn’t trust the NYTimes article on bitcoin.” The researcher further states that the emission levels cited in the NYT article are “overestimated on average by 81.7%.”
Batten also published a Twitter thread which tore apart the NYT article and argued that the editorial was full of “unsubstantiated claims.” The ESG analyst explained that the article did not cite researchers who have spent thousands of hours understanding the technology. Also, the NYT data is out of date and Batten states that “bitcoin (mining) no longer primarily uses fossil fuels.” Batten also concludes that the Times article has no factual reference to previous bitcoin mining reports or how “bitcoin mining makes renewable operators economically viable.”
What is your take on the New York Times coverage of bitcoin mining and its environmental impact? Do you think the article was one-sided, or do you think it accurately portrayed the issue at hand? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.
image credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any product, service or company. bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.
