Talk for Article "Bitcoin boils over; Trump’s ‘fake news’ awards"

Talk about this Article

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    When referring to these pseudo currencies i feel you should not call buyers “investors” but should use the word “speculators” or even just “buyers”. Investors implies providing capital to create a product or a service…..

  2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    The claim was made twice in the GOP blog article that announced the 2017 Fake News Awards that “the media spent 90% of the time focused on negative coverage or fake news”, a claim credited simply to “studies”. The Hill reported today that it “appears to be a recent study by the conservative Media Research Center”, a report published just two days ago authored by Rich Noyes and Mike Ciandella that was cited yesterday in a Washington Times article with a clickbait headline featuring the “90% negative” rating. That is one “study”, a single source, not one of a number of “studies”. Noyes and Ciandella are the self-appointed “media watchdogs” of Newsbusters, the .org website run by the Media Research Center, whose funding comes from a predictable list of ultra-conservative donors including the Scaife and Olin families.

    The authors wrote, “As a proxy for the larger establishment media, the Media Research Center analyzed every moment of coverage of President Trump last year on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts.” That is an admission that the study sampled only a minute section of the media, strictly confined to broadcast news, but the authors generalise their conclusions to include all media organs. Furthermore, it means that the MRC ignored FOX News, which has dominated cable news ratings for many years, except for a brief period between May and July 2017 when scandals at the network probably contributed to some defections in their audience to CNN and MSNBC. It also ignored many other militantly pro-Trump organs that have substantial audiences such as InfoWars, Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, etc. There is no criteria given for how coverage was determined by the MRC to be negative or positive coverage. There is also no evidence of peer review or any independent corroboration or supporting evidence for their study, which they claim comes from an extensive database compiled since 2015.

  3. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    I have added the claim included in the 2017 Fake News Awards announcement that “the media spent 90% of the time focused on negative coverage or fake news” during the first year of Trump’s presidency. I also added a link to a Poynter article reporting that “about two-thirds of Americans think fake news stories cause confusion about basic facts” and claims that the Fake News controversy exacerbates the deterioration of public confidence in the news media.

  4. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    It’d be great to have some analysis on _why_ BTC slumped in value, rather than just declaring it a “blow to Bitcoin”. As some have noted, the timing of the slump (which has started to bounce back – BTC at time of writing is @$11.5k) is related to the BTC futures market, the first of which expired ~Jan 17. (https://twitter.com/Bit_Collector/status/953715291103551488)

    There are a couple of interesting questions this raises:

    – If BTC is susceptible to hedge fund and institutional traders manufacturing volatility (as it seems it is), is this addressable?
    – At the moment, if BTC dips, so do virtually all other cryptocurrencies. At what point (if at all) will those become decoupled?

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us