Topic: And this, ladies and gentlebears, is why we like the WSJ - page 2. (Read 2942 times)

Hill was at Forbes

That's an answer to the question I raised myself in the same line

It's a very good sign, no question! But I also don't really know how much time Bitcoin needs to free itself from the taint of a dark-web currency and currency used for illegal trades.

Wouldn't that be the task for the Bitcoin Foundation to do? I mean they should really focus on what's important, rather than do... well, what are they doing, anyway? Every time I hear the name, is when someone gets thrown out for scamming someone, it seems!

Yeah, I thought the "shadowy" term was ridiculous. Their CEO went to Stanford and was a public face for his past startup. Sure, a number of the VCs weren't public, but that's not uncommon. But since it's Bitcoin, they've gotta throw the "shadowy" terminology in there.

Well, it all depends on which version of the story sounds more logical or rather more interesting. Both of them probably heard it from somewhere and spin it to come up with a version of their own. Either way, one of them wrote the original story and the other just spin the article to become its own unique version.

I believe that the image problem is less about it being too geeky or technically complex and more about the scams, hacks, failed exchanges and all the other negative associations with things like "the dark (evil) web" and so on. These have provided the media with sensational bitcoin stories in the past. All sorts of negative associations have been made and reinforced: use of terms like "the shadow currency", repeated assertions of it's use (or potential use) for money laundering... the lack of regulation (absence of a benevolent overseer) etcetc.

Now that the money men are coming around - as they realise that progressive technology can make them more money, not wanting to miss the boat, being somewhat led by the geeks in silicon valley who they no doubt have some respect for - it's not about the technological barrier, it's about this image/PR problem.

When bitcoin or bitcoin tech is making seamless solutions for all sorts of things, the tech can stay in the background, no one needs to really know about all that. What might also be required if these negative associations aren't gradually shaken out is that the name bitcoin stays in the background too. Unfortunately once an association is implanted in the brain, it takes quite a bit of effort to change or correct it.

Average Jane might see "bitcoin" and the first thing she thinks of is "shadow currency", "dread pirate roberts", "dark web" (and thus, child porn or organised crime) - once this has happened a bunch of times, her brain is wired to have that automatic response. Now you'd have to sit her down and carefully explain a new set of associations in order for her to see bitcoin in a new light. But then she'd also have to acknowledge that as truth and also consciously make some effort to think about these new associations a bunch of times before they become an automatic response and bitcoin becomes a "safe" word.

EDIT: I'm sure we all know this intuitively anyway, but it's something that shouldn't be ignored or hoped away. Either a dedicated PR campaign (as WSJ is basically doing), or a rebranding/repackaging.

it's just a matter of time before wallstreet will jump on bitcoin.
and if they will do it with their financial power, bitcoin might sky-rocket if it happens.

Since when is the media really thought to be impartial? Also, they're only reporting on a very large investment and speculate on the potential future implications of Bitcoin and the blockchain technology...

Hahaha this is hilarious!
Imparcial media, whaaa?
Good to have the wsj on bitcoin's side

That's highly interesting, but also something I was already assuming. The term may indeed be too nerdy, geeky, or whatever. But that may just be a perception we have these days and it could change if people around Silicon Valley indeed invest more.

a fool and his money are soon parted.

Maybe this explains the price rise we are experiencing.. I heard this news about wall street and bitcoin last week.. Now its starting to spread like a wild fire..

talking to an ex investment analyst yesterday and he frowned when I started talking about bitcoin. Then as he understood what I was going on about with regards to "you can't kill an idea", and, "bitcoin is a technology, not just a currency", he said, "well you'd need to change the name".

A rebranding is in order... whether that means excessive use of "new" re-dressed terms that denote bitcoin, like "blockchain technology", or just spinning the word bitcoin in a way that ultimately conjurs up less negative associations. The problem is that sometimes a word ends up beyond redemption, as in the case of "propaganda", which was originally just a word that was all about propagating an idea (not to brainwash, mislead etc).

what is "* "?

http://i.imgur.com/K7i0Apq.png

Didn't say anything against WSJ I was merely speculating that a lot of people active on Wall Street (traders, investors, banks, etc.) may still be wary of Bitcoin and may now rethink their stance.

@Kipsy89. I'd actually say WSJ has been on "our" side for more than a year (remember the Kashmir Hill pieces about "living on Bitcoin", from 2013?). Just thought the above is a nice illustration of it.

very interesting... I wonder how much of this kind of spin or bias is down to a kind of herd mentality or "culture" within a certain media corporation and/or it's friends VS how much is a certain spin or perspective cultivated from the top. The simple answer is a mixture of both.. but it would be good to look at particular case studies where a nudge from the top leads to a certain prevailing view.


WSJ!

This is great. But it was to be expected when this hit the news the other day. I really hope that many people active at Wall Street now see the potential of Bitcoin and realize that it isn't just a nerd's game anymore, but that there are many wealthy people involved already!

Same story. Two outlets. Two ways of spinning it:








"a shadowy company called 21 Inc" vs. "... some of the biggest names in venture capital".

CNBC is just one among many papers spinning Bitcoin news that way, NYT is probably even worse. WSJ is the exception, really.


Bonus question: Which of the above two publications' reader bases do you think has the higher average net worth?*