Really shameful to present the obviously pro crypto piece as neutral or informational and I have only two explanations:
- ancient editorial staff approved it because they really don't understand crypto or
- there's some kind of market for front page real estate
https://web.archive.org/web/20220219172535/https://twitter.c...
Note that non-clownshoes financial outlets, e.g. Financial Times or Bloomberg, expressly forbid journalists from writing about an asset they hold, except under appropriate editorial supervision.
Roose's present article is best viewed as his appeal to his bosses to be allowed to become a hodler.
Absolutely there is. If you want an even clearer example, take a look at the front page of the Wall Street Journal under the “Editorial Staff” section. The “reporting” there is almost always some rich, more conservative guy who basically paid to get his post on the front page of a relatively dry, and even somewhat activist-oriented (eg Facebook Files) paper.
But for most actual news it’s still worth the money, IMO, if you’re trying to stay informed and your focus is the US.
Also, whenever I start feeling indignant and thinking about canceling I check out the archive. Lots of great, great stuff down that rabbit hole:
Let's brainstorm what interest the CIA might have in crypto.