> that the journalist usually has no first hand experience, and they're just re-telling heard stories. Is this supposed to be some sort of dig at anyone writin

> that the journalist usually has no first hand experience, and they're just re-telling heard stories. Is this supposed to be some sort of dig at anyone writing or commenting specifically about crypto-currencies needing to have "first hand experience" or do you think any journalist has to have directly experienced themselves whatever they're writing about. In my view, "re-telling heard stories" is a good definition of journalism, in itself. But I suspect in this case it's meant to de-legitimize the contents of any crypto-skeptical article? edit: after the downvotes I thought I'd check the journalist's history - I thought there might be some justification for the skepticism of the post I quoted. But she has a pretty solid background writing about crypto-currency economics. So the minor linguistic mistake is obviously just a simple way to discredit the opinions she's expressing as a whole.