4 ms·
Moreso even than being wrong about a lot of things, I've been continuously amazed at how polarized coverage on Bitcoin is. It's very rarely been approached, by
by Sambdala 14y ago
Moreso even than being wrong about a lot of things, I've been continuously amazed at how polarized coverage on Bitcoin is.
It's very rarely been approached, by journalists, as "here's an interesting technology. It's a little kooky, but it's getting more popular. I wonder if anything interesting is here?".
Instead, you get either intense fandom or intense vitriol.
- jiggy2011 14y agoMost potentially disruptive things seem to be similarly polarizing.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- ChuckMcM 14y agoI suspect that is a function of pandering to their audience. There is an active readership that wants to believe Bitcoin is an escalation in the "drug war", there is a readership that wants to believe that Bitcoin can remove the influence of financial institutions on government. Articles that pander to their targeted readers get a lot of 'shares' and what ever counts as upvotes for them. This in turn is used by the author to represent their own "value" to the agency where they are providing the page views. I thought the priceonomics coverage was quite good, but I tend to look at it through an economics lens rather than a particular idealism.