Topic: Why do some news/media sources have a ridiculously negative stance on Bitcoin?? (Read 939 times)

Well that's the scary thing, I haven't seen much public outcry, and most people who I talk to about the spying revelations don't really understand the implications. They don't understand the scale or indiscriminate nature of the spying, mainly because most newspapers are going for the "well we need to spy to protect you from the terrorists" angle.

When you think that the 2 biggest selling newspapers (the Sun and the Daily Mail, both corrupt as hell) are strongly taking this stance, and they both  outsell The Guardian (the paper that printed Snowden's statements) by about 10 to 1, it really worries me.

I agree with most of this, however I think that there is a difference between being skeptical about Bitcoin, and totally ignoring the valid advantages of the system/calling the whole thing a joke without scrutinising it properly.

There are many intelligent articles written in other publications (eg this one in the Telegraph, a conservative leaning UK broadsheet newspaper http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/liamhalligan/10438565/Dont-laugh-Bitcoin-is-making-a-serious-point.html), which examine both sides of the argument.

Sources like BI and ZDnet tend to just rubbish Bitcoin without acknowledging the possible benefits, that's why I think they are biased, and it may be in their interest for the experiment to fail.

It's really unbelievable, I would be happy if the public boycotted them for basically turning their back on the truth and the people. But what is the public opinion over there on the whole matter?

I think it's simple, because they know it's a threat to their system, the state, the state manipulated media and that can be scary. I'm waiting for the youtube complications of them looking like fools.

Yeah, both the rise of Bitcoin, and the recent NSA revelations have really driven home to me how corrupt and biased most media outlets are, especially in the UK where I live. For instance, the most popular tabloid newspapers (along with the Prime Minister) are now accusing Snowden and the Guardian newspaper of breaching national security, absolute nonsense... (sorry going off topic here...)

Yeah RT's stance is very refreshing, also Max Keiser's shows are very entertaining, don't agree with everything he says but he sure is fun to watch!

What I don't understand is why so many on this forum have personally attached their egos to a form of currency; I realize that a lot of members have a personal stake in the success of bitcoin due to their holdings, but it's important to understand that what's happening now is a speculation boom and nothing more. Just because 1 bitcoin is valued at over $300 at this time of writing doesn't mean that it's "hit mainstream" or "gain acceptance". There is a still a long ways to go until bitcoin becomes an accepted form of currency to the masses, and there's a good chance that it will never happen and in a few years, bitcoins will have a market cap 1% of the current value. Bottom line: nobody knows yet!

Market writers and economists should look at bitcoin with a skeptical eye; it's their job to dissect and critique things of this nature. It's easy to identify that the current speculation boom is similar to other bubbles of the past... even pog collecting. I remember when pogs were hot items and some of the more collectible ones could fetch hundreds of dollars. Don't take offense to that. Nobody ever anticipated that pogs would be worth $350 EACH, but it's important to note that bitcoins themselves could go the way of pogs in a few years and we'll all look back on this and laugh. There's a long ways to go still.

All that said, I would love if bitcoins gain widespread acceptance and skyrocket in price, because I'll be rich and you can call me a bitcoin hater all you want. I won't care a bit. But just don't let yourselves get caught in "bull fever" and start believing your own bullshit. There's a lot of that going around lately.

When bitcoin becomes newsworthy, the media is forced to create a narrative, and the cookie-cutter narrative for a story about something that is challenging the status-quo is one of skepticism and criticism.  See: Ron Paul.  

No conspiracy, it's just that outside-the-box thinking doesn't appeal to a general population audience.

Haha yeah, I thought about genuine ignorance, but surely these journalists do at least a small amount of research before writing similar articles day after day... but "willful ignorance", hadn't thought of that!

The owners of the mainstream media corps. are the scum of the earth.
Check out Russia Today if you wan't to get an anti-dose

Ignorance + fear of the unknown

I think ignorance plays a large role. Either normal ignorance or the willful type.

I'm sure people have noticed that certain media outlets, e.g. Business Insider, ZDNet etc, seem to have an invariably negative and childish attitude towards Bitcoin. It's interesting that some journos like Ken Hess/Joe Weisenthal don't even address the arguments in favour of the Bitcoin system, and normally resort to condescending retorts (normally comparing BTC to Pogs and pet rocks...)

Also most of their articles revolve around them saying BTC has no "intrinsic value" so it is worthless, while ignoring the fact that no fiat currencies have intrinsic value either.

I think it stinks of manipulation... I reckon they're trying to keep the price down while they retrieve millions of dollars from stocks to buy coin with, and then will change their stance, basically an epic pump-and-dump 

Seriously though, I guess these media corporations have an interest in keeping the value of the dollar high? In what other ways could these companies benefit from bad-mouthing Bitcoin???