Bitcoin Proponents Accuse the New York Times of Publishing One-Sided ‘Hit Piece’ on Bitcoin Mining

After the New York Times was accused of penning favorable pieces astir disgraced FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried and inviting him to talk astatine the quality outlet’s Dealbook Summit, it is erstwhile again being criticized for publishing a “hit piece” astir bitcoin mining. The article’s authors assertion that bitcoin mining is harmful to the environment, portion the editorial besides alleges that 1 of the authors went to large lengths to analyse the story. However, bitcoin proponents disagree with the article’s premise and support that the Times newsman did not usage existent data. They besides reason that the communicative was one-sided, with practically zero opposing viewpoints.

Bitcoiners Respond to NYT Article About Bitcoin Mining — ‘Sometimes Clicks Are More Important Than the Truth’

The New York Times (NYT) is getting berated connected societal media aft respective well-known bitcoin proponents claimed that the work published a one-sided nonfiction to beforehand propaganda. This is not the archetypal clip the Times has been accused of lacking journalistic integrity and being a mouthpiece for the establishment. In mid-November 2022, the work was accused of penning a “puff piece” astir erstwhile FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) and inviting him to talk astatine the company’s Dealbook Summit event. On April 10, NYT newsman Gabriel Dance published an editorial titled “The Real-World Costs of the Digital Race for Bitcoin.”

In his editorial, Dance focuses connected bitcoin mining successful the United States and claims that 85% of U.S.-based miners usage fossil fuels for energy. The study besides discusses the authorities of Texas and the 34 bitcoin mines located successful the region. Although Dance misspells the sanction of 1 of the Texas Bitdeer bitcoin mines, his findings suggest that bitcoin mining is environmentally unfriendly and “in immoderate areas, this has led prices to surge.” However, contempt the author’s claims, immoderate bitcoin enthusiasts person denounced the nonfiction arsenic propaganda. CEO and co-founder of the Satoshi Act Fund, Dennis Porter, was among those who criticized the Times article.

“The NYT deed portion dropped and it’s everything we expected. Sad to spot the NYT onslaught bitcoin mining contempt the unthinkable outreach by our assemblage to prosecute and stock the different broadside of the story,” Porter said successful a tweet. “Sometimes clicks are much important than the truth.” In different tweet, Porter emphasized that the “NYT couldn’t adjacent instrumentality the clip to fact-check the municipality wherever bitcoin mining is taking place. “It’s Rockdale, Texas, not Rockland. These are not superior people,” helium added.

Alex Gladstein, main strategy serviceman of the Human Rights Foundation, besides criticized the NYT nonfiction for not mentioning the benefits of bitcoin.“The caller NYT portion connected mining is packed w/ misinfo, but the astir staggering happening is that it doesn’t effort to picture to the scholar what bitcoin really does worldwide,” Gladstein tweeted. “This is intentional. If you don’t recognize bitcoin’s value, past of people you deliberation it’s a discarded of energy.” Others person recovered responsibility with the NYT’s and Dance’s methodology and data. For instance, bitcoin protagonist Troy Cross opined that the methodologies of clime activistic Daniel Batten and the NYT are “starkly different.”

Climate Activist Claims Emission Levels Quoted successful the NYT Are Overstated connected Average by 81.7%

Batten is an environmental, social, and governance (ESG) analyst, clime tech capitalist and well-known for his research connected the biology interaction of bitcoin mining. After the NYT nonfiction was published, Batten besides discredited the probe done by the paper and the author. Batten asserts that the NYT nonfiction overstates the usage of fossil fuels by a large woody and helium argues that radical “should person zero spot successful the NYTimes nonfiction connected bitcoin.” The researcher further claims that the emanation levels quoted successful the NYT nonfiction are “overstated connected mean by 81.7%.”

Batten besides published a Twitter thread that picked isolated the NYT nonfiction and argued that the editorial was afloat of “unsupported assertions.” The ESG expert explained that the nonfiction did not mention researchers who spent thousands of hours knowing the technology. Moreover, the NYT information is not existent and Batten declares that “bitcoin [mining] nary longer uses mostly fossil fuel.” Batten besides concludes that the Times nonfiction has nary nonsubjective notation to erstwhile bitcoin mining reports oregon however “bitcoin mining makes renewable operators economically viable.”

What is your sentiment connected the New York Times’ sum of bitcoin mining and its biology impact? Do you judge that the nonfiction was one-sided, oregon bash you deliberation that it accurately portrayed the contented astatine hand? Share your thoughts successful the comments conception below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Disclaimer: This nonfiction is for informational purposes only. It is not a nonstop connection oregon solicitation of an connection to bargain oregon sell, oregon a proposal oregon endorsement of immoderate products, services, oregon companies. Bitcoin.com does not supply investment, tax, legal, oregon accounting advice. Neither the institution nor the writer is responsible, straight oregon indirectly, for immoderate harm oregon nonaccomplishment caused oregon alleged to beryllium caused by oregon successful transportation with the usage of oregon reliance connected immoderate content, goods oregon services mentioned successful this article.