Does every mainstream media article on Bitcoin end in negativity?

[Torque]

So for years now there's this running joke, that you can spy an MSM Bitcoin 'hit piece' article by either 1) the left compliment title, or 2) by the negative note left by the very last paragraph or the last line. If the headline doesn't turn Average Joe off completely, then the author must always end the article on a negative note to make sure and sway Average Joe away from Bitcoin.

Here's a typical one:

Bitcoin is more valuable than gold — but nowhere near as stable
http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-price-surges-past-gold-chart-2017-8

I'll quote the very last paragraph:

Despite their similarities, there's one key difference: Gold has been much stabler than bitcoin, as we can see in this chart from Statista, which is based on data from Coindesk and onvista. So, for investors looking for a safe bet, the precious metal is still the way to go.

I beg you, find me one that breaks this format pattern and prove me wrong!  

[1715147829]

1715147829

[1715147829]

1715147829

[1715147829]

1715147829

[1715147829]

1715147829

[Febo]

So for years now there's this running joke, that you can spy an MSM Bitcoin 'hit piece' article by either 1) the left compliment title, or 2) by the negative note left by the very last paragraph or the last line. If the headline doesn't turn Average Joe off completely, then the author must always end the article on a negative note to make sure and sway Average Joe away from Bitcoin.

Here's a typical one:

Bitcoin is more valuable than gold — but nowhere near as stable
http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-price-surges-past-gold-chart-2017-8

I'll quote the very last paragraph:

Despite their similarities, there's one key difference: Gold has been much stabler than bitcoin, as we can see in this chart from Statista, which is based on data from Coindesk and onvista. So, for investors looking for a safe bet, the precious metal is still the way to go.

I beg you, find me one that breaks this format pattern and prove me wrong!  

I dont see any negativity in not stability. I only see positive, that Bitcoin price raise while Gold price stays same. 

[lumeire]

The ones especially at Forbes.com are like very much like that.

Seems they're trying to steer people away from crypto as an investment. Well, I can't blame them.

[DaMut]

most of them really make it that way,
it might be happen because of goverment trying to keep their citizen to hold their back to buy it,
they afraid when most of their citizen involved and crash happen,a lot of people will lose all of their sanity.
so to prevent such a thing will not happen in the future,a lot of media publishing something like that.

but not all of them,in my hometown CNN didn't show it that way,
instead they're showing us how much we can earn by mining it :LOL:

just play what you can affor to lose,that is what they said to me

[jc89]

Yes, most of them really do that. But I think they missed the idea that the fact that they are writing anything about btc makes it even more popular. It's just like their writing negative about celebrities but people still follow them. Though some people will steer away right after reading that, we can't dismiss the fact that most people are now smarter than they think. We're not like back in the days where we believe the mainstream media. We now know how to do fact checking since we're in a technology era and with the use of internet informations are just right at the end our tips.

[Nameless27]

I may be wrong or completely right. Central banks or banking industries has to do with it. Media just can't stand by its own if there is no such thing as biases. They were a corporation or company who profit by sponsors who work on our financial institutions. We can't actually blame them, it is what reality and money made them. Let them have their glory as of what they want to do and ignored them the way they should be.

[panju1]

Rather then negativity, I would view it as a disclaimer. You don't want gullible readers suing you and telling that you misled them into investing in Bitcoin and losing a lot of money. Mainstream media are just playing it safe.

[aliashraf]

Rather then negativity, I would view it as a disclaimer. You don't want gullible readers suing you and telling that you misled them into investing in Bitcoin and losing a lot of money. Mainstream media are just playing it safe.

I strongly support this pov

It is not just about bitcoin, average typical journalists (they are dominating the field in our era) do not take responsibility by any means. They always put an emergency exit door to be used in case. But OP's discovery is about this door being often placed in the last paragraph, specially when the article has an encouraging headline .... interesting

[aso118]

Rather then negativity, I would view it as a disclaimer. You don't want gullible readers suing you and telling that you misled them into investing in Bitcoin and losing a lot of money. Mainstream media are just playing it safe.

I strongly support this pov

It is not just about bitcoin, average typical journalists (they are dominating the field in our era) do not take responsibility by any means. They always put an emergency exit door to be used in case. But OP's discovery is about this door being often placed in the last paragraph, specially when the article has an encouraging headline .... interesting

That is where all the disclaimers are usually placed. Right at the bottom where most people won't read it.
The positive thing to take away from this is at least the headlines are a lot more bullish than they were a year back.

[alyssa85]

I beg you, find me one that breaks this format pattern and prove me wrong!  

Here you go: 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/bitcoin-price-forecast-hit-100000-in-10-years.html

Bitcoin's price has the potential to hit over $100,000 in 10 years, which would mark a 3,483 percent rise from its recent record high, an analyst who correctly predicted the cryptocurrency's rally this year told CNBC on Tuesday.

[aso118]

I beg you, find me one that breaks this format pattern and prove me wrong!  

Here you go:  

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/bitcoin-price-forecast-hit-100000-in-10-years.html

Bitcoin's price has the potential to hit over $100,000 in 10 years, which would mark a 3,483 percent rise from its recent record high, an analyst who correctly predicted the cryptocurrency's rally this year told CNBC on Tuesday.

An analyst who predicted the rally told CNBC. Hey... they are just reporting the analyst's views, they aren't telling you to buy bitcoins.
And just in case you get the wrong ideas, the article also says the following.

Bitcoin's bad reputation
The bitcoin industry has had its fair share of problems and reputational damage. The digital currency has often had an image of being used for illegal means such as buying drugs online. The collapse of Mt.Gox in 2014, once the world's largest bitcoin exchange, is still fresh in the minds of users. Some members of the exchange are still waiting for compensation.

[Fortify]

I can imagine a lot of journalist's have heard about bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies in their time. It's likely they heard about it years ago and are upset that they missed the boat. It is always good to be skeptical so including negative viewpoints is helpful, bitcoin has shot up massively recently and could quite easily be in a bubble.

[iram1011]

Most of who write such article doesn't have deep understanding of Bitcoin. Many write negative articles because the government of that nation wants to propagate that idea among masses. What I believe is any type of publicity whether positive or negative only creates interest in reader to know more about Bitcoin and hence is good in turn.

[Torque]

Haha, Forbes at it again. Note the positive backhanded compliment title, but negative last paragraph:

Could Bitcoin Be Worth $619,047 In 10 Years?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/naeemaslam/2017/08/18/each-bitcoin-could-be-worth-619047-in-10-years/#78d6646f5168

"However, if the Bitcoin supply goes unlimited which is feasible, because in August we also had an event of forking which gave birth to Bitcoin cash, things would change substantially. The value of new Bitcoin cash for now is approximately $5 billion. If the supply is not limited, the core foundation of cryptocurrency would shift and it a number of elements would come on par with central bank’s currencies."

Gotta leave 'em with that sour note!    

And gosh, who put the thought in the author's mind that Bitcoin should have NO coin cap??  Hmmm?  His boss, who is loyal to the deep state central bankers, perhaps?

[Biodom]

As soon as MSM will say that bitcoin is the greatest thing ever, it would be a time (period) to sell at least some.
I remember when Apple was coming out of doldrums of pre-Jobs return era, every MSM article (1997-2003) had something about the "rotten" Apple. Those who bought then and held are doing pretty good, I think .

[gentlemand]

Yer average reader doesn't want to hear about outrageous success unless they're in on it. If it's framed as a curio then journos can write all they like, throw in some incredulity, some positivity and then wind it all up with 'and of course it'll all turn to shit'.

When it doesn't they can point to positive bits and credibility and history is neatly hedged. Hurrah.

[amacar2]

Despite significant increase in price over last few years bitcoin have gone through series of dumps in between that might have created a negative feedback from newbie bitcoin investors. Mainstream media are supported by governments and banks so they will always stand against bitcoin.

[Torque]

Here's another doozy from Business Insider. Notice the 'hit piece' title:

Here's why bitcoin could be illegal someday
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-bitcoin-could-be-illegal-someday-2017-8

It seems like they will just let anyone write an article these days. Not only does this half-baked opinion piece make zero sense and sounds like it was written by a fifth grader, the article rambles around and actually doesn't have much of a point. The last couple of lines is especially ironic since this guy worked at Lehman Brothers (which collapsed and went bankrupt in 2008). Perhaps the irony was lost on this idiot.

"It’s good to have a plan. It’s no fun coming up with a plan when everyone else is trying to come up with a plan at the same time.

Back in the 2000s, I had a thing for Greece. I watched The Bourne Identity, and at the end of the movie, Matt Damon finds Franka Potente renting bicycles on some remote Greek island, completely off the grid.

That sounded pretty attractive to me. I even remember looking up some Greek real estate at my desk at Lehman Brothers. It was 2003. Bear markets make you think of some crazy stuff."

[hatshepsut93]

I think one of the reasons why journalists end their articles on cryptocurrency is because they try to present a balanced opinion, but because of their low competence on the subject, their arguments look rather stupid. But if I were writing some article for mainstream media, I'd also include some warning regarding risks of investing in cryptocurrencies, especially altcoins - people need to understand the technology they are about to invest in, we don't need any "dumb money" that destabilize the price with panic buys/sells and act chaotically in general. 

[Torque]

Coming at you from Forbes again, another typical article fitting the profile. The obligatory complimentary title, but of course ends in negativity.

Bitcoin Is The New 'Gold'
https://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2017/08/30/bitcoin-is-the-new-gold/#54cf56b33b36

"Still, investors shouldn’t rush to substitute the yellow metal for the digital currency in their portfolio.

Especially if they don’t quite understand cryptocurrencies. And they should always be prepared to face the prospect of big governments crushing Bitcoin, as discussed in a previous piece."

I love these schizophrenic articles. The apparent message is "Bitcoin is awesome and people (investors?) are buying millions $$ worth! But big government will soon crush it!"