https://cryptoinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Screenshot-2019-01-06-at-18.40.31.png
It's unlikely and rare for a cryptocurrency news outlet (or any kind of publication from any field, for that matter) to break the fourth wall and present issues that go beyond the regular journalistic affairs. However, there is one very underrated and overlooked fact that has to be pointed out from the very beginning: media ownership matters. Whenever we turn on our televisions and check the news, it's usually pretty easy to identify the political alignment of every channel. Likewise, reading any newspaper which tackles economic, social, and political affairs will quickly signal several biases that seek to shape and manipulate opinions. However, we should all be aware that it's not always the journalist who chooses the topics and/or picks the angle of the story – but if this happens, then the work ends up being more passionate and potentially persuasive. Whoever owns and finances that particular publication more or less indirectly dictates the editorial policy and the most frequently tackled topics. If you read The Washington Post, then you should be aware that Jeff Bezos has acquired it back in 2013 and it's very likely for the articles to feature opinions that benefit Amazon as a company. Similarly, Rupert Murdoch is the CEO of Fox News and uses the platform to promote views that reflect his conservative bias. Truly objective media is hard to find, as it's extremely difficult to receive funding for a project which doesn't take sides and balances pros with cons.

The biggest names in crypto news media: Coindesk and The Coin Telegraph

First of all, let's talk about Coindesk: it's owned by the Digital Currency Group (which invests and owns considerably large amounts of Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Ripple, Zcash, and Ethereum Classic, but also backs companies such as Abra, Civic, BitGo, ShapeShift, Blockchain, and Blockstream) and is more inclined to cover stories which favor the Group's portfolio. Given the multi-million dollar backing behind Coindesk, we can safely state that the publication benefits from a great financial status and the journalists don't have to worry about the next paycheck. In theory, this should translate into a greater amount of editorial freedom and an impressive display of topical diversity. If you're not constrained by finances, then you should be free to write about anything that you want. This is only partly true, as several readers belonging to the ETH community sometimes point out a bias towards Ethereum Classic (ETC, which is part of the DCG portfolio), while Monero fans wonder why XMR doesn't get as much attention as Zcash. In order to see if the latter claim is true, I've conducted a simple search on the Coindesk article, just to discover that there have been many more articles written about Zcash in the past couple of years than the ones mentioning or concerning Monero. The situation only gets shadier with The Coin Telegraph, as the ownership and origins are not known, the identities and professional backgrounds of some journalists are difficult to track, and multiple influential publications and useful websites (including Bitcoin Magazine, 99Bitcoins, Coin Market Cap, What to Mine, Coin Geko, Venture Beat, and Coinspeaker) are part of the same media conglomerate. The first two facts point out to a questionable approach to integrity and journalistic ethics, since it's hard to expect honest and unbiased information from sources that won't disclose their interests; the third statement indicates a Gargantuan interest in everything crypto and blockchain-related (which isn't bad in itself, but might be extended into a bias towards several projects that either pay for positive coverage or bring the secretive founders and investors the expected profits). Coindesk and The Coin Telegraph are also influential enough to publish exclusive content and have other small publications reference it, and this kind of oligopoly on news is dangerous for the space. First of all, there are events that will never receive the attention they deserve just because they don't fit the agendas of the two (which aren't necessarily very different). Secondly, market sentiments and therefore prices can be easily manipulated with headlines and biased technical analysis, so the action takes place according to a well-planned narrative which benefits the investors. Thirdly, the repeated coverage of some events can make or break the legitimacy of both projects and personalities – quantitative criteria are just as important as the qualitative ones. In a nutshell, allowing big actors with a lot of skin in the financial game to take full control of the news scene is a terrible idea which only strengthens the influence of the big investors.

The smaller players: Bitcoin.com, Coingeek, CCN, and Bitcoinist

Now let's talk about Bitcoin.com and Coingeek, the publications whose bias is the most evident of them all. They are basically platforms for altcoins to attempt to take Bitcoin's crown: the former is Roger Ver's playground where Bitcoin Cash (ABC) reigns supreme, while the latter is the place where Calvin Ayre and Craig S. Wright claim to represent Satoshi's true vision. They are not, by any means, objective. The writers have a clear editorial policy about the angle from which every project must be covered, and the manipulative tactics are even more evident than anywhere else. In a nutshell, Bitcoin.com and Coingeek are clearly biased, but at least they aren't trying to conceal their stance through a veil of face objectivity. Their presence in the space is still necessary though, as some news that other publications would definitely ignore make it onto their websites and therefore round up the spectrum of opinions. Democracy entails freedom of speech, no matter how objectively flawed the arguments are. On the other side of the spectrum, CCN (or Crypto Currency News) and Bitcoinist are smaller publications that try to compete with the giants by creating niches for content. The former is a catch-all website which tries to cover everything related to cryptocurrencies and blockchains, while the latter is mostly concerned with Bitcoin. In terms of approach to content, they tend to have shorter news articles and longer op-eds or technical analyses. And since their financial backing isn't as impressive as Coindesk's, they tailor their content according to the sponsors. If you visit the websites of CCN and Bitcoinist you will see a fairly large section of sponsored articles, and one can only wonder to which extent these advertisers influence the editorial policy. It's not that Coin Telegraph and Coindesk don't have their faire share of ads, but they are much more likely to distance themselves from the views of their sponsors just because they can afford it. But in the cases of smaller websites, advertisers are kings and the situation of dealing with differences of opinion can be delicate. There are many more examples of news outlets from the cryptocurrency space that are backed entirely by advertisers and press releases, as the big money patronage is pretty rare and exclusive. Therefore, we can identify two different taxonomies: one where a wealthy group or entity sponsors the content, and the other one where the multiple advertisers are the bona fide stakeholders. None of them can claim to be completely objective or intellectually-independent, as both cases are governed by inherent biases. All of these compromises naturally lead to attempts to build independent media outlets from scratch, so that the journalists benefit from intellectual freedom and autonomy.

Crypto Insider and the struggle for independence, objectivity, and neutrality

Before getting to the subject matter, it's important to state that there are plenty of other platforms which try to do independent journalism. However, I have yet to discover one which has as much unique content as Crypto Insider – a subjective view in itself which can be contested. If you take a look a the content we provide, then you will find exclusive interviews, original op-eds which contain opinions that you won't find somewhere else, and a plurality of topics which makes it hard for anyone to identify any biases. This is because the biases belong to the writers themselves, and as long as the tone doesn't shift in the advertorial extreme, anything and everything can be presented and debated. Now let's talk about the independence of Crypto Insider: it's a publication with a longer history, but whose latest iteration is created by the minds behind Crypto Taco (a marketing and PR company). While there is still a layer of patronage and inter-operability between the two ventures, Now here's the ugly truth: objectivity is preferred and educational for the intellect of the audience. However, nobody is willing to pay for the kind of coverage that also highlights the negative aspects. Cover Image: CoinTelegraph

Originally posted on Crypto Insider : https://cryptoinsider.com/?p=35608

RE: Podsumowanie lipcowej rywalizacji ~ #poprzeczka