On March 19, 2018, I posted my article titled, "FAKE CRYPTOCURRENCY NEWS" . To those readers who commented on my post and are now followers, I offer my deep gratitude. In my article, I shared my dismay over the imprecision and inaccuracy often contained in news stories about cryptocurrency. I specifically referenced a piece of mainstream news coverage that was misleading on the subject of cryptocurrency regulation.
Careless or unknowledgeable writers who misunderstand and miscommunicate elements of the ever-evolving regulatory picture for cryptocurrency may do damage to readers who rely to their confusion and perhaps to their detriment on stories written as "news" but which in fact are imprecise and inaccurate statements. Granted, even for many lawyers it can be challenging to parse the double-talk and partially obscured agendas prevalent in public announcements by policymakers. But in fairness to regulators and their national and regional leaders, they are just beginning to get their arms around present and future implications of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology.
Indeed, the entire crypto-blockchain ecosphere is awash with innovative and often opaque technical concepts and dynamics, not to mention the hyperbolic marketing claims made by starry-eyed would-be crypto-billionaires with unrealistic expectations of their own capacities to deliver technical advancement. No wonder it's so easy for writers and readers to get things wrong. Consequently, much of the current cryptocurrency news reporting is, as a product of being in its very early history, destined to be mistaken.
This is not to claim that standards of reporting excellence are unmet only in the cryptocurrency news space. Indeed, these days one may legitimately wonder whether or not there is any minimum quality threshold at all remaining in the media in general. But if the current political situation has taught me anything, it is that in the worst of times the best reporters become capable of remarkable feats of heroism in investigative journalism. The question is, of course, how can a reader distinguish between bad reporting and superb reporting?
One must certainly keep one's wits well in order. In side-by-side Google search results, one finds feckless writings as well as sophisticated analyses, even in highly-technical micro-reporting areas such as the budding G20 policy on cryptocurrency and blockchain. Recent writings about G20 announcements concerning cryptocurrency have varied widely in interpreting possible meanings and potential consequences.
As I was drafting this article, I considered selecting two pieces of "news" -- one terribly flawed and naive and the other rather superbly penned. I thought to criticize the former and praise the latter. I had two such stories in mind. But I elected instead to discuss principles, not to mete out punishment and reward. Every story has an author, and if that author is named, then that author is a person with a reputation at risk. People can be fragile, and fans can be loyal. And I truly believe that the majority of humans act with best intentions though obviously with some degree of self-interest.
There are better things to do than engage in target practice. Isn't it better to cull the gems and discard the trash? Even grossly mistaken coverage can provoke new and useful thoughts in the reader. Rather than concentrate overly much on what is fake and what is real, what is wrong and what is right, what is inaccurate and imprecise and what is accurate and precise, I believe it is essential to bathe one's mind in the miasma of writing that proliferates on the day. Be guided by your intuitive response. Conscious analysis can be corrupted far too easily by deep-seated personal bias.
Trust yourself. Trust your own reading of the coverage of the day, the week, the month, the year. And, perhaps, permit some trust in the insights of those writers with whom you feel a harmonic resonance.
Cheers.
The Great Dane
POSTSCRIPTS:
I invite questions, refutation, and support.
CAUTION/DISCLAIMER:
Please do not take any of what is written in this editorial as legal advice (or, for that matter, as advice of any kind). One should always seek advice of one's own legal counsel and/or other relevant professionals.
