• The New York Times recently published a controversial article on Bitcoin mining that was full of misinformation.
• Leading Bitcoin researcher Daniel Batten has debunked the data as biased and false, yet the article remains online.
• Critics have accused The New York Times of cherry-picking data to push BTC into a negative light.

New York Times Article Full Of Misinformation

The New York Times has recently published an inflammatory article about Bitcoin mining that is full of misinformation. Leading Bitcoin researchers were quick to refute the information and data as biased and false, yet the article remains online in an effort to push BTC into the corner of a climate sinner.

Daniel Batten Pushes Back

One of the leading Bitcoin environmentalists and researchers, Daniel Batten, has picked apart the New York Times piece and data to the core, revealing that it lacks any journalistic integrity. As Batten discussed at length on Twitter, it appears that The New York Times only cherry-picked the data that fit its “Bitcoin is bad” leitmotif.

Mainstream Publication Criticized For Bias

Remarkably, this is not the first time the Bitcoin and crypto community has been enraged by The New York Times. Last year they were heavily criticized for publishing a “breathless love letter” to Sam Bankman-Fried despite his billion-dollar fraud having been exposed long since then.

Data Grossly Inaccurate

For Bitcoin mining industry insiders, it was obvious at first glance that The NY Times article could not be trusted due to its grossly inaccurate table of top BTC miners – which was reported by Batten with actual data collected over 8 months showing emissions levels overstated by 81.7%. Furthermore, there was ample evidence that The NY Times had massively cherry-picked their data in order to fit their narrative.

Positive Aspects Ignored

There are currently 26 mining companies in North America who use more than 90% sustainable energy; however The NY Times chose only two (Cleanspark & Terawulf) from which they focused on sites with least renewable energy usage and ignored those with predominantly renewable ones – displaying clear bias according to Batten who accused them of “inception-like cherry-picking” rather than genuine objective reporting without any positive words about their “demand response program” either.

By admin