After the New York Times was accused of writing favorable articles about disgraced FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried and inviting him to speak at the news agency’s Dealbook Summit, it is once again under fire for publishing a “hit piece” about bitcoin mining. The article’s authors claim that bitcoin mining is harmful to the environment, while the editorial also claims that one of the authors went to great lengths to investigate the story. Bitcoin supporters, however, disagree with the article’s premise and claim that the Times reporter did not use current data. They also claim that the story was one-sided, with virtually zero opposing views.
Bitcoiners Respond to NYT Article on Bitcoin Mining – “Sometimes Clicks Are More Important Than the Truth”
The New York Times (NYT) is being vilified on social media after several prominent bitcoin supporters claimed the publication published a one-sided article to promote propaganda. This is not the first time the Times has been accused of lacking journalistic integrity and being a mouthpiece for the establishment. In mid-November 2022, the publication was accused of writing a “puff piece” about former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) and inviting him to speak at the company’s Dealbook Summit event. On April 10, NYT reporter Gabriel Dance published an editorial titled “The Real-World Costs of the Digital Race for Bitcoin.”
In his editorial, Dance focuses on bitcoin mining in the US and claims that 85% of US-based miners use fossil fuels for energy. The report also discusses the state of Texas and the 34 bitcoin mines located in the region. Although Dance misspells the name of one of the Texas Bitdeer bitcoin mines, his findings suggest that bitcoin mining is environmentally friendly and “in some areas, this has led to an increase in prices.” But despite the author’s claims, some bitcoin enthusiasts have denounced the article as propaganda. CEO and co-founder of the Satoshi Act Fund, Dennis Porter, was among those who criticized the Times article.
“The NYT hit dropped, and that’s all we expected. Sad to see the NYT attack bitcoin mining despite the incredible outreach from our community to engage and share the other side of the story,” Porter said in a chirping. “Sometimes clicks are more important than the truth.” In another tweet, Porter emphasized that “NYT couldn’t even take the time to fact-check the city where bitcoin mining takes place. “It’s Rockdale, Texas, not Rockland. These are not serious people,” he added.
Alex Gladstein, chief strategy officer at the Human Rights Foundation, also criticized the NYT article for not mentioning the benefits of bitcoin. “The new NYT piece on mining is packed with misinformation, but most strikingly, it makes no attempt to describe to the reader what bitcoin is actually doing around the world,” Gladstein tweeted. “This is intentional. If you don’t understand bitcoin’s value, then of course you think it’s a waste of energy.” Others have found fault with the NYT’s and Dansen’s methodology and data, such as bitcoin supporter Troy Cross meant that the methods of climate activist Daniel Batten and the NYT are “significantly different.”
Climate activist claims about emission levels stated in the NYT are overestimated on average by 81.7%
Batten is an environmental, social and governance (ESG) analyst, climate technology investor and known for his research on the environmental impact of bitcoin mining. After the NYT article was published, Batten also discredited the research done by the paper and the author. Batten claims that the NYT article greatly overstates fossil fuel use, and he argues that people “should have zero confidence in the NYTimes article on bitcoin.” The researcher further claims that the emission levels cited in the NYT article are “on average overestimated by 81.7%.”
Batten also published one Twitter thread which picked apart the NYT article, claiming the editorial was full of “unsupported claims.” The ESG analyst explained that the article did not cite researchers who spent thousands of hours understanding the technology. Also, the NYT data is not current and Batten declares that “bitcoin [mining] no longer mainly uses fossil fuels.” Batten also concludes that the Times article has no objective reference to past bitcoin mining reports or how “bitcoin mining makes renewable operators financially viable.”
Tags in this story
Alex Gladstein, Bitcoin, Bitcoin Enthusiasts, Bitcoin Mining, BitDeer, BTC Mining, Climate Activist, Daniel Batten, Dealbook Summit, Dennis Porter, Economically Viable, Editorial, Emissions Levels, Energy, Environmental Impact, ESG Analyst, Establishment, Fact Check, Fossil Fuels , ftx, Human Rights Foundation, Journalism, Journalistic integrity, methodology, mining, misinformation, New York Times, opposing views, propaganda, renewable operators, rockdale, Sam Bankman-Fried, Satoshi Act Fund, social media, technology, Texas, Twitter- thread, USA, unsupported claims
What do you think of the New York Times’ coverage of bitcoin mining and its environmental impact? Do you think the article was one-sided, or do you think it portrayed the issue accurately? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.
Jamie Redman
Jamie Redman is the news editor at Bitcoin.com News and a financial technology journalist living in Florida. Redman has been an active member of the cryptocurrency community since 2011. He has a passion for Bitcoin, open source and decentralized applications. Since September 2015, Redman has written more than 6,000 articles for Bitcoin.com News about the disruptive protocols emerging today.
Image credit: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or an endorsement or recommendation of products, services or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is directly or indirectly responsible for damages or losses caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on content, goods or services mentioned in this article.
