Is the media against technology, or simply against crypto?
The New York Times has long nurtured an unyielding animosity toward all things blockchain, and last week they intensified their stance by publishing a senseless and disingenuous article titled “Crypto is pointless. Not even the White House can fix that.” Penned by two economists from the Biden administration, the piece capitalized on Bitcoin dropping below $70,000 to contend that this time the crypto industry is truly finished, and that blockchain technology is merely a glorified database that even big tech firms shun. The authors conclude by asserting that the previous administration made a good-faith effort to collaborate with the crypto industry but had to adopt a tougher approach following the Sam Bankman-Fried scandal.
All of this is baseless, and comes across as a desperate bid for relevance by a dwindling group of Biden supporters. If you have doubts, ask financial powerhouses like [names] who this year sped up their embrace of digital assets. Or poll figures such as [names] regarding whether they agree blockchain is just another database. Concerning the claims of sensible regulation, the authors fail to mention that federal judges repeatedly condemned Biden-era crypto investigations as “arbitrary and capricious.” They also conveniently overlook that Bankman-Fried had close ties to the Democratic party and committed his crimes while Biden was in office.
This sort of falsehood permeates the rest of the piece, mirroring the biased reasoning seen in much of the Times’ crypto coverage and other media outlets. The question is why articles like this are published in the first place. Does it simply reflect media outlets’ backlash against the outrageous crypto scams of the Trump administration? Or does it signal something more widespread—a general contempt for new technology?
There is indeed evidence of a creeping anti-tech worldview in the media, one that even reaches the technology publication WIRED. Om Malik, my former mentor and one of Silicon Valley’s astutest observers, has observed that WIRED used to be a “shiny beacon of light” but now stories about technology are being overshadowed by tales of achieving the best-smelling scrotum (). Malik is not alone. In February, former WIRED executive Keith Grossman took issue with a story on crypto and human trafficking to denounce the publication’s excessive focus on politics and negativity—a stance backed by a former WIRED editor-in-chief and others.
Of course, it’s not straightforward. Stephen Levy, the doyen of tech journalism, rightly noted in response to Grossman that politics is currently a significant part of technology. Others pointed out that unlike 15 years ago, tech and crypto CEOs can no longer convincingly portray their firms as upstarts. And despite amassing considerable power in Washington, D.C., they show little interest in the great responsibility that comes with it.
However, it is possible to report on all this while still being optimistic about the underlying technology—be it crypto, AI, self-driving cars, or the many other remarkable inventions that can enhance our lives. Unfortunately, it seems that expressing views on technology has become yet another way to take sides in our endless culture wars. That’s a pity. New technology, whether in the form of electricity, antibiotics, or the internet, has always brought excitement and the promise of a better future.
Crypto is no exception. This is evident from Digital Gold, a 2015 book on the early history of Bitcoin whose back cover promises “a brilliant and engrossing account of this new technology.” The book, likely still the finest crypto work to date, is written by a former New York Times journalist.
Jeff John Roberts