Why after all this time is 'crypto journalism' so shit?

[1Referee]

So far I see the people never looking to do their own research about cryptocurrencies while they are looking to invest on on trading or anywhere.

People are lazy. In most cases the average person adds lots of value to expert opinions, which explains why you see plenty of people here talk about experts predict this or that event or price, while in reality these "experts" don't know shit. Even if they are an expert in their own non-crypto field, it doesn't make them an expert here. They blindly assume that crypto related news sites did their research and spread honest and unbiased information, which obviously isn't the case.

Also, most crypto related news sites are lazy ass bitches just copying articles from other sites and post it as if it was something they have written and conducted research on. Just browse through various news sites and you'll see that in most cases articles with the exact same wording are posted everywhere. That's not journalism, that's parasitic behavior over the back of journalists that did all the work.

[1715336484]

1715336484

[1715336484]

1715336484

[eternalgloom]

Couldn't agree more with the point made by Jesse Powell, you'll the the same headlines over and over again, just reworded...
Not something that's unique for crypto, but it does seem to be especially prevalent in this industry.

I would really like to see some new publications pop up that work with a subscription-based model, instead of an ad-driven one.
On the condition that they only publish high quality and unique articles. I would definitely be willing to pay for that.

[ViciousWarlock29]

Because now every second person is journalist. And in such a competitive topic as the cryptocurrency, there are a lot of those who write all they think. And there are a lot services such as upvotes.io, that promote all.

[gentlemand]

https://mobile.twitter.com/RyanHurley2/status/1034137763992481793

Relevant and something I hadn't really thought about before. Most people here will know more than the reporters.

[pixie85]

There's still not that many people with knowledge of cryptocurrencies so they have to hire anyone willing to do it. The typical recruitment process gives you points. Since you can't have much experience in cryptocurrency journalism (there are almost no pro cryptocurrency journalists that got fired from their previous jobs) you're getting points for interest, presence, any previous experience in journalism. News sites like Coindesk are full of writers who don't know much about cryptocurrencies and are paid to look for news elsewhere and rewrite them. News from China are translated from Chinese outlets, news from India are from Indian outlets, news about plans of companies like Bitmain are rephrased tweets. He said she said articles based on gossip.

[peter0425]

Another good read pertaining on how shit crypto journalism is, there is no consensus in the cryptocurrency community when it comes to journalistic standards. The article discusses how Coindesk, published a controversial article about Ethereum proposal, the EIP999. Vitalik took to Twitter to vent his outrage about the articles. Of course, not all agree to him so the whole debate started and up to now, there's no universal ethics about crypto journalism, whatsover. Rubbish and shill articles continue to make it to crypto related websites as to this day.

[buwaytress]

Another good read pertaining on how shit crypto journalism is, there is no consensus in the cryptocurrency community when it comes to journalistic standards. The article discusses how Coindesk, published a controversial article about Ethereum proposal, the EIP999. Vitalik took to Twitter to vent his outrage about the articles. Of course, not all agree to him so the whole debate started and up to now, there's no universal ethics about crypto journalism, whatsover. Rubbish and shill articles continue to make it to crypto related websites as to this day.

Even in the traditional industries/sectors, there aren't agreed standards. Just different codes, different guidelines, but really, no standard. It's too subjective to apply something concrete to.

Meanwhile, some of the best pieces out there (to me) continue to rank the lowest in terms of readership, shares and engagement. If some believe news standards merely reflect the societies that consume the news, then perhaps we're all to blame for (perceived) falling standards?

As I said anyway, the public is no longer the primary interest served by media.

[aoluain]

Its about selling news and it has come to the stage where good journalism
is very much watered down by terrible reporting.

There are far more people who either done know a lot or love to hate bitcoin
so any sort of news real of false will sell.

[entrepmind23]

Its about selling news and it has come to the stage where good journalism
is very much watered down by terrible reporting.

There are far more people who either done know a lot or love to hate bitcoin
so any sort of news real of false will sell.

Yes, they just want a click bait so that they can earn more so even though a news is fake, they would even sensationalize it so that it would be more talk about and more people would visit their site. This is the reason why I don't easily believe the news anymore because there are times when they would omit certain facts about the case so that people would misunderstood it and in turn react negatively. Besides that, many people would likely check a negative news than a good one because they would be more concerned with their investments.

[Kakmakr]

I have a family member working for a local news media outlet and he says that his editor is only interested in articles that will attract attention and that would draw people to their site. They have to look for all the juicy click bait stuff and they are under tremendous pressure to come up with articles that would draw in the crowd. <It is all about the numbers and the money these days and ethics have made way for greedy shareholders to demand higher profits>

He says some stories are even fabricated to bring in the numbers, because it is all about the money.  Now add to that, the lack of knowledge about Crypto currencies and also deliberate FUD being spewed out by the media and you have a perfect shitstorm.   

[gentlemand]

I have a family member working for a local news media outlet and he says that his editor is only interested in articles that will attract attention and that would draw people to their site. They have to look for all the juicy click bait stuff and they are under tremendous pressure to come up with articles that would draw in the crowd. <It is all about the numbers and the money these days and ethics have made way for greedy shareholders to demand higher profits>

I may be more discerning and less of a mong than most, but I would only bother once with a site that fed me pure shit. If I assured of getting objective and factual content I'd pop along a few times a day.

I still don't get how they'd make any money out of me though as I'm also undim enough to adblock.

[BitHodler]

I still don't get how they'd make any money out of me though as I'm also undim enough to adblock.

You reading their article is already a hit they can leverage, and in case you are using a vanilla browser with basic settings, they could even leverage other data such as what you did before visiting their site.

If you want to cut everything out, then the only way is to avoid news outlets from which you know only produce rubbish articles. If that's not an option, then use chrome's incognito tabs as that seems to help as alternative.

[Kakmakr]

I have a family member working for a local news media outlet and he says that his editor is only interested in articles that will attract attention and that would draw people to their site. They have to look for all the juicy click bait stuff and they are under tremendous pressure to come up with articles that would draw in the crowd. <It is all about the numbers and the money these days and ethics have made way for greedy shareholders to demand higher profits>

I may be more discerning and less of a mong than most, but I would only bother once with a site that fed me pure shit. If I assured of getting objective and factual content I'd pop along a few times a day.

I still don't get how they'd make any money out of me though as I'm also undim enough to adblock.

They make money from the advertisers on the site or in the newspapers. These companies request the site statistics and the circulation figures, to determine which outlet will give them maximum exposure. So, if they can attract more views and visitors to their sites, then they succeeded in their goal.

People are being bombarded with information and news every day, so if you can put some sensational articles out there that can grab their attention <truth or lies>, then you might draw them to your site. 

[buwaytress]

I have a family member working for a local news media outlet and he says that his editor is only interested in articles that will attract attention and that would draw people to their site. They have to look for all the juicy click bait stuff and they are under tremendous pressure to come up with articles that would draw in the crowd. <It is all about the numbers and the money these days and ethics have made way for greedy shareholders to demand higher profits>

He says some stories are even fabricated to bring in the numbers, because it is all about the money.  Now add to that, the lack of knowledge about Crypto currencies and also deliberate FUD being spewed out by the media and you have a perfect shitstorm.   

That's pretty much the newsroom I used to work in too. The worse was when journalists were all assigned to do sponsored content... the almost impossible task of churning out a newsworthy piece based on content submitted by a client. That's a large portion of content on financial publications now too... Forbes and the like, Huffpost, etc.

When it comes to boardroom discussions or editorial meets, the first order of business is the news, and then all the following agenda items are about money. It's a hard business to keep afloat and since advertising revenues are falling for everyone, especially online, sponsored content is really the only thing paying the bills. The shareholders ultimately decide what to pursue, and that's a natural business model.

The funding and cost of real investigative work is back-breaking... and then what's the reward? A Pulitzer if you're top class, some small award for your newspaper if you're regional or national, and a lot of angry police, authorities, companies who make your life hell trying to get information later.

Fabricating stories though? That's wag-the-dog stuff at least traditional papers and most editors still don't want to dabble in.

[gentlemand]

They make money from the advertisers on the site or in the newspapers. These companies request the site statistics and the circulation figures, to determine which outlet will give them maximum exposure. So, if they can attract more views and visitors to their sites, then they succeeded in their goal.

People are being bombarded with information and news every day, so if you can put some sensational articles out there that can grab their attention <truth or lies>, then you might draw them to your site.  

I clearly know nothing about this. I would assume that someone chucking money at a site claiming a certain amount of figures would want to fund something that wasn't utterly dire.

It seems to me the equivalent of buying vs earning Facebook likes or something. If your site is shit less people will stick around. Those visits will be empty. I might spend several hours on a high quality site and no more than 10-20 seconds on a typical fuckhole.

I'd love to know which crypto sites are actually making money.

[Aikidoka]

Because like you said, they are to do whatever they are paid. Whether it is a crucial news or a ridiculous ones, journalists always strive to write whatever they want to write. If they want to change the public opinion, they will write an article full of convincing arguments. They really can play with words and expressions. That's why people should not follow them blindly as they have to check everything by their own eyes.