Bitcoin Mention in CNN

[error]

So it was on tv apparently.  The intro was full of wrong infromation but oh well.  Here is teh intro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OcTFOQpz0c

I believe that YouTube channel is owned by Meze Grill's owner. Sure, the intro wasn't so great, though it wasn't THAT wrong.

[1714189782]

1714189782

[evoorhees]

So it was on tv apparently.  The intro was full of wrong infromation but oh well.  Here is teh intro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OcTFOQpz0c

I believe that YouTube channel is owned by Meze Grill's owner. Sure, the intro wasn't so great, though it wasn't THAT wrong.

I liked when he said "the company's valuation is $100m"... like it's a stock or something. It's very hard for people to REALLY get their heads around the idea of a de-centralized currency. It's truly a paradigm shift... and thank goodness it's arrived.

[BusmasterDMA]

Of course it was a fluff piece.  Everything on CNN is fluff these days (with the exception Fareed Zakaria).  Given the target audience though, I think it was still balanced coverage and overall some good PR for Bitcoin.  (I would have expected them to have opted for a more sensationalist story, focusing on black markets and what not.)

And honestly if they had started diving into the more technical benefits, the typical viewer would have tuned out.  Instead they showed someone buying lunch with an iPhone, which will appeal to many more people.  And the story mentioned how Bitcoin ideologically opposes fiat, which should appeal to any Teapartiers who happen to be watching CNN instead of Fox.   Collectively,  iPhone owners (and would-be owners) and Teapartiers should easily account for the large majority of the American population.

[MrJoshua]

Your ownership percentage in a company can absolutely go down.  It's called stock dilution.

True, under certain circumstances.  I didn't want to complicate the issue.  The upshot is is that Bitcoins are even better then stock in that respect.

[AngelusWebDesign]

Another biased report; mentions of the word "Ponzi scheme", "illegal activities" and etc without explaining such arguments ("some say...").

Maybe we should all stop using cash? Since cash is probably the most popular method of illegal transactions, ie drug dealing.

The fuction of a currency has nothing to with stopping it from being used for illegal or shameful purposes. As long as people want drugs or porn or whatever else, they will find ways to use any currency as a trading tool, be it cash or Bitcoins or golden nuggets. It's not Bitcoins' job, it's an issue with people.

For every hint of a "pro" Bitcoin argument, they present a dozen useless negative fallacies about Bitcoin. Why don't they mention how Bitcoin cannot be willingly printed at mass out of thin air? The guy from WIRED didn't mention any of the security aspects of Bitcoins and how it cannot be easily counterfeited.

Yes, it looks like only a few people are tuned to how the media works. They throw out little digs, under the guise of "balanced reporting", even if those digs are completely unfounded. "Some say Bitcoin is a scam..a ponzi scheme..." without bothering to say why, or why it isn't.

Do you know the best way to destroy something, media wise (or on a discussion forum)?

A) to be a completely obvious troll, ripping on it for all it's worth
B) pretend to be fair and balanced, admitting some obvious strong points while throwing in a dozen possible bad points, including unfounded charges
C) pretend to be the PRO, while subtly undermining it

With the media, you have to watch a clip and ask yourself, "What do I take away from this video? What general FEELING or impression do I have?"

For this specific video, you might add, "How do I feel about Bitcoin? Would I be likely to go out and get involved?" If not, ask yourself WHY -- what ideas have been planted in your head to lead to that feeling?

And you often times can figure out what the media has just "done".

For all those who disagree with me, and the post I'm quoting --
Think about it. That's all I ask. Think about it.

[hawks5999]

I primarily disagree with your use of "myself" instead of "me" in the sentence beginning "For all those who disagree with myself,"

It made me forget everything else you had written.

 

[LeonGeeste]

Good points, but I have to nitpick one thing:

 If you hold 1% of Apple, it will always be 1% of apple, even if they issue more stock, ...

If Apple issues more stock, that dilutes your share to less than 1%.  The value may not change, though, since they'll usually get money for the new stock, which increases the value of the assets you own a share of, but you will own a smaller fraction of the company.

Generally, owning a number of shares is no guarantee that your percentage ownership will stay constant because of e.g. exercise of stock options, conversion of debt, etc.

[AngelusWebDesign]

I primarily disagree with your use of "myself" instead of "me" in the sentence beginning "For all those who disagree with myself,"

It made me forget everything else you had written.

 

Come on, you're giving Bitcoiners a reputation for being anal. 

Why bother reading this forum then... I'm certainly not the poster with the poorest command of the English language, even among the native speakers.

[Apolo29]

I`d like to know if this is the 10,000 btc pizza guy

[error]

I`d like to know if this is the 10,000 btc pizza guy

It is not.

[hawks5999]

I primarily disagree with your use of "myself" instead of "me" in the sentence beginning "For all those who disagree with myself,"

It made me forget everything else you had written.

 

Come on, you're giving Bitcoiners a reputation for being anal. 

Why bother reading this forum then... I'm certainly not the poster with the poorest command of the English language, even among the native speakers.

A bunch of crypto-currency hardware torturing or elliott wave trading geeks anal? Never!

All you're grammar are belong too us.