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
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
193❤️7🤙4👀2🧡1
