• The New York Times recently published an article about Bitcoin mining that is full of false information and bias.
• Daniel Batten, a leading Bitcoin environmentalist and researcher, has exposed the inaccuracies in the article.
• The New York Times has been criticized numerous times for pushing its “Bitcoin is bad” agenda.
The New York Times’ Biased Reporting
The New York Times has once again published an inflammatory article about Bitcoin mining full of misinformation. Although leading Bitcoin researchers were quick to refute the information and data as biased and false, the article remains online in an effort to push BTC into the corner of a climate sinner. One of the leading Bitcoin environmentalists and researchers, Daniel Batten, has picked apart the New York Times piece and data to the core, revealing that the article lacks any journalistic integrity. As Batten discussed at length on Twitter, the mainstream publication only cherry-picked the data that fit its “Bitcoin is bad” leitmotif.
For Bitcoin mining industry insiders, it is already obvious at first glance that the NY Times article cannot be trusted. The NY Times’ table of top BTC miners is grossly inaccurate, as reported by Batten, who collected actual data over an 8-month period. According to Batten, the NY Times article overstates the emission levels of mining companies Riot, Atlas, Cipher Mining, US Bitcoin Corp., Rhodium and Bitdeer by an average of 81.7%. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that The New York Times has cherry-picked data massively to support its thesis.
Criticism From The Crypto Community
Remarkably this isn’t first time The New York Times has been criticized by crypto community members late last year for publishing a “breathless love letter” to Sam Bankman-Fried even though his billion-dollar fraud had long since been exposed. It’s clear from these events that there are definite double standards when it comes to reporting on cryptocurrency topics with many publications pushing their own agendas instead of providing unbiased journalistic content.
Cherry Picking Evidence
For example there are currently 26 mining companies in US & Canada using more than 90% sustainable energy out which only 2 have been included in their data (Cleanspark & Terawulf). Within those two they focused on least renewable energy based sites & neglected those predominantly renewable ones which clearly shows how much they have cherry picked their evidence to comply with their “Bitcoin Is Bad” agenda!
Overall it’s easy to see why so many people within cryptocurrency community have grown distrustful towards mainstream news outlets such as The New YorkTimes due to lack of genuine objective reporting & heavy bias towards topics related with cryptocurrencies!