[2018-10-25]We Asked Crypto News Outlets If They’d Take Money To Cover a Project

[gentlemand]

And more than half said yes

https://breakermag.com/we-asked-crypto-news-outlets-if-theyd-take-money-to-cover-a-project-more-than-half-said-yes/

And in certain cases if you pay extra it's lifted out of the 'sponsored' content category.

No surprise of course but there it is out in the open anyway. The 'crypto press' has always been shit. I think it's going to get shitter.

[1Referee]

The 'crypto press' has always been shit. I think it's going to get shitter.

Of course it will get shitter. Crypto related news outlets are only out to reach average joes, because everyone else with a moderate understanding of crypto shits on these news outlets. The deeper we dig into mainstream adoption, the shitter news outlets will become. That directly explains why the quality of the content has reached its lowest point in the last 12 months.

News outlets in general means news for the masses, which translates into fake news, sponsored (biased) news, old and low quality content. In other words, 99% rubbish.

Did anyone being here for at least since 2015 learn anything from the articles you have read on platforms as CCN, Coindesk, etc?

[buwaytress]

Everyone pays for content, whether or not we find that acceptable, that's accepted. This forum also takes payment for advertising, so for me as long as it is clearly marked sponsored, people got to make money. BBC does it, Al Jazeera... Every news outlet does.

But for sure, shitty to learn that they'd take off the sponsored tag for more money but hardly surprising. Huffpost and Forbes sort of do the same, how else do you get ponzi Onecoin featured on their cover.

[fisheater]

This is not only for crypto, lots startups are just craps, if you have enough money, you'll get press and people will invest money to you. The news outlets have to survive too.

[hatshepsut93]

Nowadays a lot of free stuff is actually working against the users, so people often say that if a product is free, then the user is the product. Social networks sell user's data, sites spy on visitors, shouldn't be surprising that free news are biased and feature secretly paid articles. I'd say that people should distrust everything by default, this includes information, software and other people.

[LeGaulois]

Did anyone being here for at least since 2015 learn anything from the articles you have read on platforms as CCN, Coindesk, etc?

Perfect for the sheep I am going to say. But when you think about it, it's the type of content that drives traffic and enlarges the audience. Journalists follow the popular trends to write anything they can. Bloomberg, Forbes, and CNN have even their own crypto account on Twitter.
I mean, they have been deep u to create a separate account. Any Twitter user knows that when CNBC Fast & Money says something, do the opposite.

[DooMAD]

Not that I'm condoning it, but media became a business and businesses naturally endeavour to make money. 

I can't even begin to imagine how to go about solving this problem.  Money has always bought influence.  Just because we've found a way to make the money itself less corrupt, that doesn't mean we're ever going to find a way to prevent people using money to do corrupt things.

[BitHodler]

Did anyone being here for at least since 2015 learn anything from the articles you have read on platforms as CCN, Coindesk, etc?

Nope. The only thing I use them for is to know what's playing in the overall crypto world, but only to have articles function as notification. I will then go straight to the source to find out what the deal really is.

Lately I've been reading a lot through Medium, which grants people a more in-depth look into certain subjects, but it can't really be seen as a news outlet. Reddit has been absolutely trash as well with all the shills and trolls.

The trick is to not take everything so seriously. It's a business model (quantity over quality) meant to pay off big time, and average birdies seem to take most of it for granted, so it seems to work pretty effectively.

[guybrushthreepwood]

Crypto websites are businesses and are set up to earn money, so this isn't really surprising, but it obviously becomes unethical if they will promote anything just for payment. I think it depends on how they run the "promotions" as well. I don't think anyone has an issue with mere adverts as they have to earn money somewhere but biased puff pieces that don't state they're paid promotions often fall into the shady side of business in my opinion, especiallywhen media outlets should be impartial. A lot of celebs have been caught promoting crypto scams and ICOs also and just because someone threw some money at them. Even John Mcaffe was taking money to promote ICOs on Twitter.

BBC does it

In what capacity? BBC has no adverts across any of its platforms and has some pretty strict guidelines about things being promoted on their programs.

[pixie85]

Now you know why they had so many false articles that they never apologized for. 2 years ago there were so many paid articles about cloud mining on coindesk and CCN and most of the companies went bust soon after. Coindesk was covering FUD from China without even confirming it. They aren't confirming anything, they just want to be the first to publish even if the news is false.

[gentlemand]

Of course it will get shitter. Crypto related news outlets are only out to reach average joes, because everyone else with a moderate understanding of crypto shits on these news outlets. The deeper we dig into mainstream adoption, the shitter news outlets will become. That directly explains why the quality of the content has reached its lowest point in the last 12 months.

News outlets in general means news for the masses, which translates into fake news, sponsored (biased) news, old and low quality content. In other words, 99% rubbish.

Did anyone being here for at least since 2015 learn anything from the articles you have read on platforms as CCN, Coindesk, etc?

You don't think there's a market for a news source that's actually any good?

A place that researches things properly, has thorough analysis, upholds certain standards and works to hold the rest of the space up to certain standards would rapidly stand out compared to everywhere else. Even if it was less visible to begin with, it would be thriving many years after the worthless and clueless shit holes had disappeared without anyone noticing.

[figmentofmyass]

You don't think there's a market for a news source that's actually any good?

A place that researches things properly, has thorough analysis, upholds certain standards and works to hold the rest of the space up to certain standards would rapidly stand out compared to everywhere else.

i was about to say bitcoin magazine is one of the only respectable crypto outlets left. now i see they're doing sponsored content too: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/reshape-blockchain-security-blocksafe-technologies/

there may be a niche for honest and well-researched news, but it's a small niche and it's inherently unprofitable. it's not profitable to hire competent researchers and do endless fact-checking and send real reporters in the field. that's why even mainstream news today is mostly comprised of talking heads and clickbait articles. it's more about speculation and sensationalism (and yes, sponsored stories) than anything legitimately newsworthy.

that's how you keep it cheap, get lots of viewers, and pay the bills. crypto or otherwise, i think it's getting really hard for honest news outlets to keep their head above water.

[buwaytress]

BBC does it

In what capacity? BBC has no adverts across any of its platforms and has some pretty strict guidelines about things being promoted on their programs.

I've been reading BBC world and accessing it from several regions for years and I can recall ever since, there's an Ad on every video you want to watch, news or otherwise. Not as annoying as Youtube and definitely not as long or intrusive, but there's definitely advertising on BBC digital. BBC channels are a bit more annoying.

Again, I'm not saying it's bad, far from it. You've got to respect that media needs revenue and most of it comes from advertising, and digitally, most of that comes from sponsored content. As long as it's clearly marked "advertorial" or "sponsored", it's fine, and 100% accepted in traditional news industry.

Here's a BBC sponsored story: http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20160914-the-man-behind-the-million-dollar-homepage

Almost can't tell right? But it's part of this fully sponsored campaign by Ecco: https://www.bbcglobalnews.ltd/bbc-storyworks-creative/ecco-sponsored-content/

[gentlemand]

I've been reading BBC world and accessing it from several regions for years and I can recall ever since, there's an Ad on every video you want to watch, news or otherwise.

I assume you're one of those dirty foreigners? BBC World is fully commercial and expected to pay its own way in a way the domestic BBC is not. The locals don't get advertised at. Instead we're harassed and threatened with fines and jail if we don't cough up to pay for the non advertising.

[milewilda]

Expected to see Coinidol. lol. No surprise that these sites would really be used as mediums and i do treat it already as a normal thing.

[veleten]

And more than half said yes

https://breakermag.com/we-asked-crypto-news-outlets-if-theyd-take-money-to-cover-a-project-more-than-half-said-yes/

And in certain cases if you pay extra it's lifted out of the 'sponsored' content category.

No surprise of course but there it is out in the open anyway. The 'crypto press' has always been shit. I think it's going to get shitter.

the only thing that surprises me is that it was only 50% that said yes 
more than sure that almost every crypto-news outlet is taking money to promote projects that are at best shady
some do not pass an opportunity to market completely scam HYIPs, masquerading for games and such
and it will only get shittier, there is no doubt about it, since even more wannabe cryptonews outlets are entering the market
so they got to make money somehow and guess how they do it?
correct-by shilling

[buwaytress]

I've been reading BBC world and accessing it from several regions for years and I can recall ever since, there's an Ad on every video you want to watch, news or otherwise.

I assume you're one of those dirty foreigners? BBC World is fully commercial and expected to pay its own way in a way the domestic BBC is not. The locals don't get advertised at. Instead we're harassed and threatened with fines and jail if we don't cough up to pay for the non advertising.

Guilty as charged. Less dirty Commonwealth leech but a foreigner no less!

Hardly mind it (ads), I still like the quality and that peculiar sardonic BBC reporting when it comes to world politics - got nothing much against their Bitcoin reporting, even if they still insist to spell "crypto-currency"! You still have to pay for TV licences there, don't you? We paid it for years, legacy of the Empire, but their sun finally set and we've been getting "free TV" for about 10 years now.

[gentlemand]

You still have to pay for TV licences there, don't you? We paid it for years, legacy of the Empire, but their sun finally set and we've been getting "free TV" for about 10 years now.

Yes we do. And if you don't pay up you get masses of harrassment. I don't see how that model can continue for much longer. I haven't watched a live TV show in more than a decade.

[CoinClarity]

I write for a crypto website and I get paid just enough to squeeze by. I have no idea how much the owners get from ICO listings, but its enough to keep me steadily employed doing something I actually enjoy and getting to live off the grid.

Isn't it pretty obvious, when somebody starts reading an article, whether they are reading a product placement article or not? Maybe I enjoy a certain degree of literacy that others don't but if an article just reviews how awesome Product X is, its going to be boring, irrelevant or otherwise easy to spot as a paid review article.

In any case, it was interesting _not_ to see CoinTelegraph, CoinDesk or bitcoin.com on there. I still quote newsbtc and bitcoinist a lot because they do good work, but refuse to include links from bitcoin.com anymore because they are straight up propaganda. Even if its unpaid propaganda, its propaganda nonetheless.

[gentlemand]

I write for a crypto website and I get paid just enough to squeeze by. I have no idea how much the owners get from ICO listings, but its enough to keep me steadily employed doing something I actually enjoy and getting to live off the grid.

Isn't it pretty obvious, when somebody starts reading an article, whether they are reading a product placement article or not? Maybe I enjoy a certain degree of literacy that others don't but if an article just reviews how awesome Product X is, its going to be boring, irrelevant or otherwise easy to spot as a paid review article.

In any case, it was interesting _not_ to see CoinTelegraph, CoinDesk or bitcoin.com on there. I still quote newsbtc and bitcoinist a lot because they do good work, but refuse to include links from bitcoin.com anymore because they are straight up propaganda. Even if its unpaid propaganda, its propaganda nonetheless.

I'll assume Coindesk have a back door lined with gold for their special customers to hawk their filth. There's no way they'd openly start talking business with some random penis via email.

So your site's owners are commissioned by a project to write something and then they commission you to do it? Feel free to tell me to mind my own business.