After a week of being offline in the countryside, I logged back onto social media to find my timeline filled with news of an assassination attempt on Trump.
My first thought, after noticing my impeccable timing, was, “Let’s see how CNN looks at this.“
And lo and behold, the first thing they wrote was that “Trump was dragged off stage after falling during his rally“.
Perhaps you’ve thought about it too, and if so, you’ll probably agree that the media landscape has changed.
A lot of.
This shift, fueled by employee politics, the rise of cancel culture, and the need to make money, has had a profound impact on the way technology and Bitcoin (and everything else, really) are viewed.
What is going on here?
Let’s take a look at the influences on today’s media.
No monolithic media elite
First of all, let’s make one thing clear: there is no secret group of media elites making the decisions.
The idea that the media controls everything with a capital “M” is simply not true.
It’s a myth.
What is really happening is that many journalists come from elite schools like Columbia, Harvard or Penn. This trend has created a liberal bias in the media, not because of some grand conspiracy, but because of the backgrounds and views of those who create the news.
This liberal bias has particularly affected coverage of technology and Bitcoin, effectively making left-leaning media anti-tech.
In general, liberals are wary of Bitcoin’s rapid technological development and decentralized nature, seeing it as a threat to regulation and traditional financial systems.
The Rise of Cancel Culture
Another factor is that the past decade has seen the emergence of a cancel culture, where people or companies are publicly criticized for controversial opinions or actions.
This has also had major implications for media outlets, with journalists feeling the need to align their reporting with prevailing views to avoid negative reactions.
As a result, media companies are increasingly allowing the content of their publications to be influenced by their political preferences.
Now you might think that this is different from the MSM of previous decades, which strove for a more balanced and less politically charged image.
Sure, political bias often overshadows factual reporting, especially in sensitive areas like technology and Bitcoin, but that’s nothing new.
Pursuing the truth vs. making money
At the heart of media activity is the struggle between finding the truth and making money.
These companies make money in two ways: through advertising, which connects potential buyers with sellers, and through subscriptions, including consumer subscriptions (such as your $10-a-month news subscription) and business subscriptions (such as purchasing a Bloomberg terminal).
If you look back over the last 15 years, the era of mass consumer publications is over. Today, media on both ends of the spectrum are thriving.
For example, the New York Times does the following: phenomenally goodPeople may not realize that The New York Times is actually a product company at this point, with 30-40% of their revenue coming from games and cooking, and another large portion from their subscriptions.
The point is that journalism ideally tries to reveal and report the truth, but economic realities dictate otherwise.
Media companies need to engage and monetize their audiences in different ways so that they can respond to what their audience wants. In a digital age where bias in the media is becoming increasingly apparent, it is important to deal with bias in the media. Sometimes objective truth is sacrificed, sometimes factual journalistic work is sacrificed in favor of what generates revenue.
This explains why media tailor their content to the preferences of their audience.
Editorial decisions about which stories to feature and how topics are presented are driven by what attracts readers and viewers, not just to the story itself, but also to the multimedia ecosystem a medium wants to offer in order to remain relevant and economically viable.
A Historical Perspective on Media Bias
While these different revenue streams are new approaches to media, bias itself is not.
During the American Civil War, newspapers openly supported specific political factions. (Google “Copperhead Democrats” (to get an idea of one of the three different media outlets all taking sides.)
Today’s media works exactly the same way, only with modern complexity.
Digital platforms and algorithms that curate content based on user preferences have created stronger echo chambers, where people are primarily exposed to information that supports their existing beliefs.
This echo chamber effect reinforces media bias, as media companies produce content that aligns with their audience’s views in order to keep their attention.
For technology and Bitcoin, this means negative narratives stick, making it difficult to combat bias.
Bitcoin is not for everyone
In an opinion piece last year I wrote about how Bitcoin is not for everyonewhich means you have to look at specific groups. Bitcoin and the broader tech industry needs to understand and navigate this landscape.
Because bias towards certain topics is fine, it’s part of the media. The problem arises when that bias leads to writing things that aren’t factual.
And that’s why people have come to dislike the mainstream media as a whole – not because they have a bias, but because that bias often overpowers the factual reporting. This is a relatively new phenomenon.
And it looks like this will continue, or that media companies will realize that they will lose the trust of their audiences if they continue this way.
Or maybe the lesson is the opposite: if you go too neutralyour audience may also react negatively and try to cancel you or terminate their contracts.
Most media organizations, whether it’s CNN, the New York Times, or Fox News, know what their audience wants to hear. The only time they face a rebellion is when they present the opposite story.
So make sure you carefully manage the amount of content you use.
Because I know the world is scary now, but it’s about to get a lot worse.
This is a guest post by Fernando Nikolic. The opinions expressed are entirely his own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.