This sort of mendacity informs the rest of the piece, and reflects the sort of motivated reasoning found in so much of the Times’ crypto coverage, and in other corners of the media as well. The question is why pieces like this get published in the first place. Does it simply reflect a backlash by media outlets against the grotesque crypto grifting of the Trump administration? Or does it reflect something broader—a contempt for new technology in general?
It’s not black and white, of course. Stephen Levy, godfather of tech journalism, rightfully pointed out in response to Grossman that politics is a big part of technology right now. Others noted that, unlike 15 years ago, tech and crypto CEOs can no longer credibly portray their firms as upstarts and underdogs. And that, even as they amass great power in Washington, D.C., they show little interest in the great responsibility that goes with that.
It’s possible, however, to report on all this while also staying optimistic about the underlying technology–whether it be crypto, AI, self-driving cars, or the many other marvelous inventions that can improve our lives. Unfortunately, it feels that expressing views on technology has become yet another way to declare allegiance with one side or the other in our interminable culture wars. This is a shame. New technology, whether in the form of electricity or antibiotics or the internet, has always brought cause for excitement and the promise of a better future.
Crypto is no different. This is clear from Digital Gold, a 2015 book about the early history of Bitcoin whose back cover promises: “a brilliant and engrossing account of this new technology.” The book, probably still the best crypto work to date, is by a former New York Times journalist.
