{"id":19697,"date":"2023-04-10T23:11:13","date_gmt":"2023-04-10T23:11:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/crowdfundjunction.com\/blog\/bitcoin-proponents-accuse-the-new-york-times-of-publishing-one-sided-hit-piece-on-bitcoin-mining-bitcoin-news\/"},"modified":"2023-04-10T23:11:13","modified_gmt":"2023-04-10T23:11:13","slug":"bitcoin-proponents-accuse-the-new-york-times-of-publishing-one-sided-hit-piece-on-bitcoin-mining-bitcoin-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/crowdfundjunction.com\/blog\/bitcoin-proponents-accuse-the-new-york-times-of-publishing-one-sided-hit-piece-on-bitcoin-mining-bitcoin-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Bitcoin Proponents Accuse the New York Times of Publishing One-Sided ‘Hit Piece’ on Bitcoin Mining \u2013 Bitcoin News"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Originally posted on : Bitcoin News )<\/b>
\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/header>\n
\n\n<\/div>\n

After the New York Times was accused of writing favorable pieces about disgraced FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried and inviting him to speak at the news outlet\u2019s Dealbook Summit, it is once again being criticized for publishing a \u201chit piece\u201d about bitcoin mining. The article\u2019s authors 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 proponents disagree with the article\u2019s premise and maintain that the Times reporter did not use current data. They also argue that the story was one-sided, with practically zero opposing viewpoints.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bitcoiners Respond to NYT Article About Bitcoin Mining \u2014 \u2018Sometimes Clicks Are More Important Than the Truth\u2019<\/h2>\n

The New York Times (NYT) is getting berated on social media after several well-known bitcoin proponents claimed that the publication published a one-sided article to promote 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<\/a> of writing a \u201cpuff piece\u201d about former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) and inviting him<\/a> to speak at the company\u2019s Dealbook Summit event. On April 10, NYT reporter Gabriel Dance published an editorial titled \u201cThe Real-World Costs of the Digital Race for Bitcoin.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Bitcoin<\/p>\n

In his editorial<\/a>, Dance focuses on bitcoin mining in the United States and claims that 85% of U.S.-based miners use fossil fuels for energy. The report also discusses the state of Texas and the 34 bitcoin mines located in the region. Although Dance misspells the name of one of the Texas Bitdeer bitcoin mines, his findings suggest that bitcoin mining is environmentally unfriendly and \u201cin some areas, this has led prices to surge.\u201d However, despite the author\u2019s claims, some bitcoin enthusiasts have denounced the article as propaganda. CEO and co-founder of the Satoshi Act Fund, Dennis Porter, was among those who criticized the Times article.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe NYT hit piece dropped and it\u2019s everything we expected. Sad to see the NYT attack bitcoin mining despite the incredible outreach by our community to engage and share the other side of the story,\u201d Porter said in a tweet<\/a>. \u201cSometimes clicks are more important than the truth.\u201d In another tweet, Porter emphasized that the \u201cNYT couldn\u2019t even take the time to fact-check the town where bitcoin mining is taking place. \u201cIt\u2019s Rockdale, Texas, not Rockland. These are not serious people,\u201d he added<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"Bitcoin<\/p>\n

Alex Gladstein, chief strategy officer of the Human Rights Foundation, also criticized the NYT article for not mentioning the benefits of bitcoin.\u201cThe new NYT piece on mining is packed w\/ misinfo, but the most staggering thing is that it doesn\u2019t attempt to describe to the reader what bitcoin actually does worldwide,\u201d Gladstein tweeted<\/a>. \u201cThis is intentional. If you don\u2019t understand bitcoin\u2019s value, then of course you think it\u2019s a waste of energy.\u201d Others have found fault with the NYT\u2019s and Dance\u2019s methodology and data. For instance, bitcoin supporter Troy Cross opined<\/a> that the methodologies of climate activist Daniel Batten<\/a> and the NYT are \u201cstarkly different.\u201d<\/p>\n

Climate Activist Claims Emission Levels Quoted in the NYT Are Overstated on Average by 81.7%<\/h2>\n

Batten is an environmental, social, and governance (ESG) analyst, climate tech investor and well-known for his research<\/a> 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. Batten asserts<\/a> that the NYT article overstates the use of fossil fuels by a great deal and he argues that people \u201cshould have zero trust in the NYTimes article on bitcoin.\u201d The researcher further claims that the emission levels quoted in the NYT article are \u201coverstated on average by 81.7%.\u201d<\/p>\n

Batten also published a Twitter thread<\/a> that picked apart the NYT article and argued that the editorial was full of \u201cunsupported assertions.\u201d The ESG analyst explained that the article did not cite researchers who spent thousands of hours understanding the technology. Moreover, the NYT data is not current and Batten declares that \u201cbitcoin [mining] no longer uses mostly fossil fuel.\u201d Batten also concludes that the Times article has no objective reference to previous bitcoin mining reports or how \u201cbitcoin mining makes renewable operators economically viable.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\nTags in this story
\n<\/h6>\n
Alex Gladstein<\/a>, Bitcoin<\/a>, Bitcoin Enthusiasts<\/a>, Bitcoin mining<\/a>, BitDeer<\/a>, BTC Mining<\/a>, climate activist<\/a>, Daniel Batten<\/a>, Dealbook Summit<\/a>, Dennis Porter<\/a>, economically viable<\/a>, editorial<\/a>, emission levels<\/a>, Energy<\/a>, environmental impact<\/a>, ESG analyst<\/a>, establishment<\/a>, fact-check<\/a>, fossil fuels<\/a>, ftx<\/a>, Human Rights Foundation<\/a>, Journalism<\/a>, Journalistic integrity<\/a>, methodology<\/a>, mining<\/a>, misinformation<\/a>, New York Times<\/a>, opposing viewpoints<\/a>, propaganda<\/a>, renewable operators<\/a>, rockdale<\/a>, Sam Bankman-Fried<\/a>, Satoshi Act Fund<\/a>, Social Media<\/a>, technology<\/a>, Texas<\/a>, Twitter thread<\/a>, United States<\/a>, unsupported assertions<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

What is your opinion on the New York Times\u2019 coverage of bitcoin mining and its environmental impact? Do you believe that the article was one-sided, or do you think that it accurately portrayed the issue at hand? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nJamie Redman <\/h6>\n

\nJamie Redman is the News Lead at Bitcoin.com News and a financial tech journalist living in Florida. Redman has been an active member of the cryptocurrency community since 2011. He has a passion for Bitcoin, open-source code, and decentralized applications. Since September 2015, Redman has written more than 6,000 articles for Bitcoin.com News about the disruptive protocols emerging today.

\n
\n
\n<\/a>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Image Credits<\/b>: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Disclaimer<\/strong>: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n