5 ms·

Analysis is obviously flawed, question to me is what might motivate the WSJ to run a story like this. Any ideas? Are papers/journalists legally required to di

by nxzero 11y ago

Analysis is obviously flawed, question to me is what might motivate the WSJ to run a story like this. Any ideas? Are papers/journalists legally required to disclose any holdings that relate to stories they cover?

jonknee 11y ago
This seems right in the wheelhouse of a financial newspaper like the WSJ.
dragontamer 11y ago
Its a "blog" on the WSJ. I wouldn't call a story truly "from" the WSJ unless it was explicitly called out from its editorial board. Even things on the opinions page are typically from the opinion of a specific writer as opposed to the whole newspaper. This article for example has no author, and is on the official "www" web page. We can presume its a full statement on behalf of the WSJ's editorial board: http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-his-apologists-1437345060 http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-his-apologists-1437345... Unfortunately, newspapers don't seem to "get" the online community. Newspapers need to better brand their "blog" pages, which are typically full of crap (but are typically written by average Joes, as opposed to professional journalists). If online newspapers better branded their "Editorial Board" stories, maybe this confusion wouldn't happen as much.
exolymph 11y ago
So, I'm not a lawyer, but IIRC journalists are not legally required to disclose holdings. However, professional ethics definitely does require that they be transparent. For what it's worth ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ My guess is that WSJ just wanted to run a clicky story about bitcoin.
Animats 11y ago
That's the real question. 24 days in which Bitcoin was more stable than gold is cherry-picking from noise. A year would be significant. Bitcoin is mostly driven by people getting money out of China. All the major mining operations are now in China. Bitcoin mining is "manufacturing" and "exporting" as seen by China law, so running a Bitcoin mining operation is a legitimate way to get foreign currency. Bitcoin mines even get the electricity discount and tax breaks of an exporter.
usefulcat 11y ago
Seems like the WSJ version of clickbait.

by nxzero 11y ago

jonknee 11y ago

This seems right in the wheelhouse of a financial newspaper like the WSJ.

dragontamer 11y ago

Its a "blog" on the WSJ. I wouldn't call a story truly "from" the WSJ unless it was explicitly called out from its editorial board. Even things on the opinions page are typically from the opinion of a specific writer as opposed to the whole newspaper. This article for example has no author, and is on the official "www" web page. We can presume its a full statement on behalf of the WSJ's editorial board: http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-his-apologists-1437345060 http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-his-apologists-1437345... Unfortunately, newspapers don't seem to "get" the online community. Newspapers need to better brand their "blog" pages, which are typically full of crap (but are typically written by average Joes, as opposed to professional journalists). If online newspapers better branded their "Editorial Board" stories, maybe this confusion wouldn't happen as much.

exolymph 11y ago

So, I'm not a lawyer, but IIRC journalists are not legally required to disclose holdings. However, professional ethics definitely does require that they be transparent. For what it's worth ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ My guess is that WSJ just wanted to run a clicky story about bitcoin.

Animats 11y ago

That's the real question. 24 days in which Bitcoin was more stable than gold is cherry-picking from noise. A year would be significant. Bitcoin is mostly driven by people getting money out of China. All the major mining operations are now in China. Bitcoin mining is "manufacturing" and "exporting" as seen by China law, so running a Bitcoin mining operation is a legitimate way to get foreign currency. Bitcoin mines even get the electricity discount and tax breaks of an exporter.

usefulcat 11y ago

Seems like the WSJ version of clickbait.