Oddbean

I've had a response from the BBC, and they're doubling down, further proving how difficult it is to hold the BBC accountable for their misinformation. Here’s a short summary on their response: Flawed Metrics: The BBC relies on Alex de Vries' debunked "per transaction" metric to assess Bitcoin's environmental impact, despite Cambridge University disproving this methodology as early as 2018. The BBC ignored credible research that highlights the fundamental flaws in de Vries' study, failing to fact-check before publishing. https://x.com/DecentraSuze/status/1834671256299257876 Misleading Headline: The BBC admitted to using "payment" and "transaction" interchangeably in their headline, allegedly to make it more accessible to readers. However, this distinction is critical—confusing the two leads to gross overestimation of Bitcoin's water use by a factor of 1000x or more. This misrepresentation is not a small error; it's misinformation. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67564205 Undisclosed Conflict of Interest: De Vries works for the Dutch Central Bank, which has a vested interest in discrediting Bitcoin, yet the BBC did not disclose this conflict. Central banks stand to lose from decentralised finance systems, making de Vries’ affiliation highly relevant and worth disclosing. The BBC dismissed this concern outright. Impartiality in Question: Despite claiming impartiality, the BBC consistently fails to provide balanced reporting on Bitcoin. This article is just one of many examples, amplifying flawed studies while ignoring counter-evidence and perpetuating a one-sided narrative. https://x.com/gladstein/status/1803507915556606200 Broken Complaint Process: Beyond the article’s provable flaws, which have been dismissed by the editorial complaints team, I can’t even respond to the email I received. The BBC’s process forces me to deliver responses over the phone, making it more difficult to address these serious issues. Accountability feels impossible. https://x.com/DecentraSuze/status/1834669804923322843 This isn’t just about bitcoin. It’s about journalistic standards and the integrity of the information that the public relies on. We need to demand better fact-checking, transparency, and accountability from organisations like the BBC. The links they have provided in support of their response are provided below: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137268 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949790623000046 https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2024-07/ESMA75-453128700-1229_Final_Report_MiCA_CP2.pdf https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines https://m.primal.net/Kvcx.jpg https://m.primal.net/Kvcy.jpg https://m.primal.net/Kvcz.jpg

You can connect with me now via simpleX Chat with the link below ⏬ https://simplex.chat/contact#/?v=2-7&smp=smp%3A%2F%2FZKe4uxF4Z_aLJJOEsC-Y6hSkXgQS5-oc442JQGkyP8M%3D%40smp17.simplex.im%2FGURI7tP4afExB-87ZpAQViqh3dnT87ia%23%2F%3Fv%3D1-3%26dh%3DMCowBQYDK2VuAyEAT8NmXPElFRftWJE-Y9p4joK98e-kk6dV0tJNN0frDjM%253D%26srv%3Dogtwfxyi3h2h5weftjjpjmxclhb5ugufa5rcyrmg7j4xlch7qsr5nuqd.onion

Well it’s not surprising but still it’s disheartening. Makes you think about all the other news stories written quoting miss leading research. Well done for highlighting and sorry they are still being entitled knobs

Amazing work on this Susie. It may feel like banging your head against a brick wall sometimes, but I think complaints like this do make a difference over time. The journalist in question will have likely had to come back to it and do further work internally to justify and defend their content, alongside others. Whilst the complaint may not be upheld, they may be more careful in their stance next time around.