Here are some basic thoughts that will allow you to correctly represent for your own use, correctly represent in public discussion, and correctly respond to press mentions of Bitcoin.
A. Anyone working in the press is a professional and intellectual failure. Whether they're a "journalist" for something happening on dead tree paste or a talking head on the tube, they are not there for their thinking.
To understand this better, consider the case of advertising copy, which is exactly what all media is. Some scientist somewhere comes up with an idea. This person is paid to think. Some engineer somewhere comes up with a way to make an object out of that idea. This person is paid for their experience. Some business people take this to market. They are paid a percent off the gross.
Part of the taking to market is going to a copywriter and saying "here's the object, write the copy". The copywriter is not involved in making the object, either in the ideal or the concrete. He is not even involved in making the meta-object, ie, the "advertising strategy" : the business people establish that. His job is roughly the job of a patient monkey which, given a bag of marbles, is ordered to keep shaking it until three red ones fall out.
This is what your "journalist" does : he takes fundamentally meaningless words and mixes them until his employer is happy with the general look and feel of the finished text.
Consequently, taking umbrage at their constant repeating of thoroughly discredited nonsense (such as for instance the "deflationary" argument), or at their quoting of thoroughly discredited phoneys (such as for instance Krugman) is a waste of your time.
More importantly, attempting to engage them in any sort of conversation is a pernicious validation of their own delusion. No journalist goes "I published a new article, five hundred people read it, four hundred ninety proceeded to explain, illustrate, demonstrate and clearly show what an idiot I am and how completely misguided and nonsensical my piece is." Nothing of this sort, it will be simply a "500 reads, 470 comments". That is all. Journalism is not about being right, journalism is not about describing facts. Journalism is the support of advertising, and just like advertising all about "reach". The more people read his nonsense, the better. Even if they think it's nonsense.
Spam doesn't work by making sense to its recipients, spam works by being nonsensical and reaching a lot of people. Journalism is exactly the same thing, working in exactly the same way. You don't really hit the reply button on spam emails, do you ?
B. Since Bitcoin is flawless, everyone is angling at "having found the flaw". This is just human nature. Nobody wants to do the work, everybody wants to get paid for either not doing anything at all or in the worst case to get credit for something happening with which they had nothing to do.
This explains why people "call" the price evolution of Bitcoin. Why not ? Statistically speaking they'll be right sometimes, which cases can then be selected over a long enough period and perhaps command a pay from somebody. Maybe. Please ?
This is exactly how "we've found the flaw in Bitcoin" pieces are born. No content is actually needed and it doesn't have to particularly make any sense. Just paste something in there, to have it at the ready for the case someone actually does the work and finds a flaw. This is also how "Bitcoin is a Ponzi" pieces are born. If the BCB fucks up next time and we do blow up... well. It'll be great to be able to go back to some unrelated, nonsensical piece where "we called it".
C. Bitcoin is killing the welfare state. I've been saying it for a while and it's pretty obvious. Without the ability to inflate the currency and without the ability to tax coercively (both removed by Bitcoin), the State finds itself unable to finance the programs which keep the poor voting the populists. There will be no more food stamps, there will be no more federal aid for college, there will be no more army pay and there will be no more government jobs. We're not talking about "sequestration" here, ie, 0.1% or less cuts in expenditure. We are talking about the president cooking his own food or else hiring his own cook, because there's no money in the public treasury to pay for it. Everything is going away. All of it.
This makes everyone who currently draws his paycheck from the state (such as, the journalist, his wife the social worker, or his girlfriend in the "women's issues" master programme, or his mother the pensioneer or his brother the IRS agent or his cousin the policeman) quite interested in depicting Bicoin as bad. We will hear all about how Bitcoin is "bad for democracy", and "racist", and everything else.
The fact of the matter is Bitcoin does not mix with big government, and the mathematical definition of "big" is anything larger than one. In the early days of the US a woman buying a set of china for the White House was a scandalous expenditure. These days are returning.
This is not something up for debate, or something that can be modified or "improved upon" or altered in any way. Much like the Internet changed sexual behaviour whether anyone agrees or not, just so Bitcoin is changing political behaviour, want it to or not.
It will obviously be debated to high heavens, great imaginary victories will be won on the virtual field of "Bitcoin issues" just as it presently happens on equally virtual fields of whatever the social "sciences" are doing. Nobody cares. It makes not one whit of difference. Some woman that thinks she was sorta-raped by Bitcoin writes a fifty page essay about this, instead of about polar bears or poor Africans ? Great. Not worth reading, not worth discussing, not worth the mention. Bitcoin will proper-rape her soon enough, and then she'll learn to like it, and then she'll learn to love it. Or maybe she won't. Either way, Bitcoin will do it again. And again, and again. And forever.
In the end, representing the problem in terms of hurting X, Y or Z special interest group, or in terms of "bad for Democracy", or in terms of anything else is equally uninteresting. Bitcoin is doing away with big government, and everything big government supports. Everything pretty much is going away, and there's nothing anyone can do about any of it.
D. Doing is better than talking. About six months after MPEx was - safely, carefully and discreetely - opening Bitcoin to Wall Street, Coinlab came out with a lot of press blather about how they're bringing Wall Street to Bitcoin, via Silicon Valley Bank and an arrangment which was announced for two weeks ago and nobody's heard of since. So ?
This pattern will repeat just fine. Journalists can talk themselves dizzy over Bitcon, at the end of the day they'll be sticking pens in their ass for 10 BTC, because anything is better than hunger. Including rape.
In conclusion, the best course of action is to just forget about the press. They don't matter, can't help or hinder and in the end talk is cheap and nobody cares what anyone saysi. Bitcoin is not persuasive, it's not a construct of language. Bitcoin is a construct of math, and those are always coercitive.———
- The opposite of talking is not listening, the opposite of talking is waiting for your turn. [↩]