Does Forbes Love Bitcoins?

[applelover]

I've seen the most consistent, intelligible, non-negative press on bitcoins from Forbes.com.  Why is that?

[lucaspm98]

They are less biased than many other news sources, and their financial experience may show how Bitcoin can be a solid investment.

[applelover]

Maybe it is forbes himself who directs them to be like that.  I remember Forbes ran for President on the basis of a flat tax, so I am guessing he is more liberterian than other powerful people.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

We need to ask this guy if there's a Bitcoiner in their midst: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/

[Carlton Banks]

No, wrong.

Some of the most negative press has come out of Forbes of late. Jon Matonis era seems like a long time ago, don't think he's written for Forbes in 6 months.

Jon used to cover the innovative aspects of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, things you can do with Bitcoin that are brand new concepts to money system, such as frictionless transacting, brain wallets, black markets, instant electronic settlement etc.

Forbes editorial policy has been to cover nothing but regulatory hurdles and black markets since Jon left their roster. There have been several technical developments, the sort of topics Jon used to cover, both before and since that have received zero coverage in Forbes.

These are real achievements in the development of financial tools, and Forbes have been whisper silent. Why?

[Phinnaeus Gage]

No, wrong.

Some of the most negative press has come out of Forbes of late. Jon Matonis era seems like a long time ago, don't think he's written for Forbes in 6 months.

Jon used to cover the innovative aspects of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, things you can do with Bitcoin that are brand new concepts to money system, such as frictionless transacting, brain wallets, black markets, instant electronic settlement etc.

Forbes editorial policy has been to cover nothing but regulatory hurdles and black markets since Jon left their roster. There have been several technical developments, the sort of topics Jon used to cover, both before and since that have received zero coverage in Forbes.

These are real achievements in the development of financial tools, and Forbes have been whisper silent. Why?

Wow! I thought he was still there. It looks like it's been four months now.

[applelover]

No, wrong.

Some of the most negative press has come out of Forbes of late. Jon Matonis era seems like a long time ago, don't think he's written for Forbes in 6 months.

Jon used to cover the innovative aspects of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, things you can do with Bitcoin that are brand new concepts to money system, such as frictionless transacting, brain wallets, black markets, instant electronic settlement etc.

Forbes editorial policy has been to cover nothing but regulatory hurdles and black markets since Jon left their roster. There have been several technical developments, the sort of topics Jon used to cover, both before and since that have received zero coverage in Forbes.

These are real achievements in the development of financial tools, and Forbes have been whisper silent. Why?

Carlton, what mainstream media gives bitcoins better coverage?

[MicroGuy]

I've seen the most consistent, intelligible, non-negative press on bitcoins from Forbes.com.  Why is that?

They realize that digital currencies are the future. I suspect we'll see some altcoin articles in the coming months!

[Rupture]

Forbes prefers bankers.

[Elwar]

Kasmir Hill who works for Forbes and writes many articles about Bitcoin is someone who is very informed on many matters of Internet privacy and does her due diligence with her Bitcoin research knowing where to go to get information as close to the source as possible. She also lived on Bitcoin for a week so she has a good understanding of how it works.

[Sindelar1938]

They are about the same as the rest of big media

They will be wary of over-committing to btc or any other new paradigm

But some of the matoniis articles have been refreshing and enjoyable

[Carlton Banks]

No, wrong.

Some of the most negative press has come out of Forbes of late. Jon Matonis era seems like a long time ago, don't think he's written for Forbes in 6 months.

Jon used to cover the innovative aspects of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, things you can do with Bitcoin that are brand new concepts to money system, such as frictionless transacting, brain wallets, black markets, instant electronic settlement etc.

Forbes editorial policy has been to cover nothing but regulatory hurdles and black markets since Jon left their roster. There have been several technical developments, the sort of topics Jon used to cover, both before and since that have received zero coverage in Forbes.

These are real achievements in the development of financial tools, and Forbes have been whisper silent. Why?

Carlton, what mainstream media gives bitcoins better coverage?

I think you're trying to say that we should be pleased with the quantity of Forbes articles on Bitcoin, and not their quality?

[applelover]

carlton, no, for instance i thought this recent article published in forbes was downright good

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/15/bitcoin-companies-and-entrepreneurs-cant-get-bank-accounts/

quality writing, various pieces of real world facts, no stupid opinions one way or the other about bitcoins

[Carlton Banks]

carlton, no, for instance i thought this recent article published in forbes was downright good

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/15/bitcoin-companies-and-entrepreneurs-cant-get-bank-accounts/

quality writing, various pieces of real world facts, no stupid opinions one way or the other about bitcoins

She didn't even read the title or the name of the Bitcointalk thread she linked to. If she had, she would have noticed that the topic wasn't about the CoinValidation website at all, it was concerning an entirely separate proposal. That will only have confused anyone who followed it and read a few posts, until they too realised that they'd been given an inaccurate steer. It just seems lazy.

Journalists are judged by their abililty to purvey correct, unbiased information. With comments like this: "Bitcoin is a baby currency. When it grows up, it could do serious damage to the banking hegemony, but only if the banking industry is willing to nurse it to adulthood.", Hill only underscores her one-sided view, and only proves that her fundamental understanding of cryptocurrency is pretty superficial at best. The two halves of the second sentence directly contradict each other on multiple levels; the banking industry just isn't going to help with the growth of a system that in any way threatens the basis of it's business model.

She can write well, but she's frequently out of her depth writing about Bitcoin. Hell, she confessed herself to be out of her depth when trying to figure out how to buy BTC and use the system. She is learning more and more though, it's just a little insulting to the intelligence of readers of a publication aimed at high net-worth investors that someone should be blundering around trying to make sense of technological developments in finance then calling it journalism. And getting paid, no doubt handsomely, to do so.

[Shallow]

That's funny, I'm always seeing articles about how it will never work

[applelover]

Carlton I generally I agree with you.  I still maintain my position that RELATIVE to other coverage I've seen on bitcoins, such as from bloomberg, washingtonpost... forbes has been better.  I agree with you though, Forbes is shitty too.

I still did learn some news from the article I linked.  I didn't know banks were shutting down businesses having to do with bitcoins.  Or that the FBI was planning to sell their seized bitcoins.  in most articles i learn absolutely nothing.

[Carlton Banks]

Carlton I generally I agree with you.  I still maintain my position that RELATIVE to other coverage I've seen on bitcoins, such as from bloomberg, washingtonpost... forbes has been better.  I agree with you though, Forbes is shitty too.

I still did learn some news from the article I linked.  I didn't know banks were shutting down businesses having to do with bitcoins.  Or that the FBI was planning to sell their seized bitcoins.  in most articles i learn absolutely nothing.

It's true, Forbes are the best of a bad bunch.

It's a curious overall posture that the the press as a whole are ending up taking. The big-money-bags "I know Donald Trump, he once tipped me when I worked the desk at the Four Seasons" crowd that read Forbes are getting more information than anyone else. The people that read the print edition, those that either have or want to give the impression that they actually need high-rollers investment and lifestyle tips, didn't read a word from Jon Matonis. He was always a Forbes "blogger", never to be in print (although maybe the occasional article snuck in, not generally a Forbes reader myself).

Meanwhile, the rest of the press throughout the world have been either a little active, or very tight lipped.

Western press: very active overall

• Financial Times - it's the new tulip bubble, it has problems with technical economic and regulatory stuff etc
• Wall Street Journal - ditto the FT really, plus slightly more about money laundering and drugs
• New York Times, Washington Post et al - price volatility, drugs, money laundering, firearms (unsubstantiated), people trafficking (unsubstantiated)
• London Times, Daily Mail, Guardian - price volatility, drugs, money laundering, firearms (unsubstantiated), people trafficking (unsubstantiated)

Eastern press: barely a thing

• CCTV - Economics in 1/2 hour on Bitcoin as a primer, explaining the technology
  
• CCTV - carefully targeted TV piece to the local Chinese population
• The Hindu - Mining specific piece, written by an executive from Indian mining company, no less
  
• Indonesian-Daily-whose-name-I-forget - Canadian ATM coverage, with the expected basic overview
  

The Western press have taken their coverage, and the overall negativity towards it, more seriously than anyone, anywhere else. To contrast talking and action, the Chinese have been buying BTC, manufacturing ASICs and mining with them like nowhere else. Indications are that India may move the same way.

And right in the middle (in more ways than one), Russia have been stirring the pot like crazy, almost as much coverage as Forbes, and generally positive (call it cautious optimism).



Make of it all what you will.

[applelover]

Why do you think the Indians have been to slow to get behind bitcoins? From what I read their currency sucks, and they have desperately been trying to buy gold, but cannot even do that.

Also, why do you think the coverage in China is bad? Bitcoins have had neutral coverage from state owned media, what else can you expect from them?

I hate western media so much.  Not only is it biased, but the reporting doesn't even have any quality behind it, these guys who write bitcoin articles, or articles on anything, don't even seem to call a single person to get any real reporting done; they just copy paste some articles they find on google and change a few words.

[Carlton Banks]

With Indian uptake, it seems that a combination of lower prevalence of internet (and presumably the infrastructure to support that), less stable and prevalent electricity supply, and also the culture of buying and understanding the money value of gold (although as you say, that's been getting penalised by the Indian government recently).

With China, I wouldn't characterise it as "bad" coverage as such, just very thin coverage. And that's maybe to be expected. If the Chinese press had been going crazy for Bitcoin, I don't think the Chinese state, who make no secret of the extent that they control the press, could dodge the bullet of the Western press saying "Chinese plot crypto-socio-fascist currency to take over World by stealth!". That might be a bit of an exaggeration of what the Western press would come out with, but I think some moderate version of this principle is what informed the Chinese game plan. With big booms/marketing pushes happening in South America, Europe, Russia Canada and the US, all taking place before the Chinese media moved to support, they can kind of make out they turned up half way through the party. But the Chinese have arguably the most to gain from Bitcoin's success, so they played a the best hand they could IMO.

Think of the poor Japanese: the "Satoshi Nakamoto" thing, along with the Mt Gox thing, really put them in the crosshairs. No wonder the Japanese have literally only just knocked on the door, saying "I heard all this noise, you guys never even told me you were having a party?!!" And to be fair, they're in the top 5 of the countries with most to gain from a big Bitcoin.

[Mondy]

They all realise bitcoin is something that has potential!