Sound Money

Just another day at the office of corrupt centralized institutions

I was sceptical of the New York Times (NYT) in the past due to some controversy surrounding its editors/journalists/culture but I cannot remember those exact incidents very well. The NYT have also published biased reporting on bitcoin mining in the past. But there are many media outlets with the same bias against bitcoin mining so I had not drawn any particularly strong conclusions on the institutions at the time. The reporting on FTX and SBF takes my view of these institutions to a whole different level.

Rather than focus on SBF and FTX’s incredulous fraud, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and NYT have highlighted the reduced ability to solve humanitarian problems as a result of his business failure. They have also continued to invite him to speak at important events, allowing him a stage to influence popular opinion.

SBF is a criminal who deserves to spend time in jail yet these media outlets are treating him like a fallen angel. These contradictions absolutely boggle the mind.

At first I did not feel that I have a worldview in order to understand the ridiculous bias exhibited but that was untrue. It turns out, I was just temporarily blinded by the brazen nature of the bias.It did not take long for me to realise that this is merely another case of corrupted political interests. The only reasonable explanation for the shocking reporting is SBF’s major donations to the Democratic and Republican parties (reportedly $40mn each) in recent years and their ‘need’ to cover for an insider. Particularly interesting is that SBF’s Republican donations were not made public until very recently, highlighting his manipulative desire to appear left-leaning because this side of the political aisle tends to hold the moral higher ground.

In reality, SBF was just bribing politicians the whole way through.

If my suppositions are correct, how does one take anything published by the WSJ and NYT seriously? How many millions of people are mislead by these propaganda outlets? They have smart reporters and their articles are often well researched so there is a strong appearance of credibility. But it is now clear to me that the credibility is merely a veneer. The credibility disguises a biased political agenda below the surface.

Fraud by a seeming sociopath like SBF is one thing that obviously gets my blood boiling, but institutionalized political bias hiding behind a veneer of credibility really tips me over the edge. It is so insidious. At least FTX is going out of business, but the WSJ and NYT will keep publishing their political agendas for many years to come. They will continue to pull the wool over people’s eyes. It is disgusting and a real indictment on the political system that this nonsense is allowed to continue. Any self respecting human should want these media outlets to fold after this obvious bias.

So, if you think about it, SBF was stealing money from crypto participants and funneling it towards politicians in Washington to protect himself from the very crimes he was committing. Nice one Sam!

Where do we go from here? I am not really sure. There is obviously further reason to be distrustful of these media outlets and to spread the message so that we raise our awareness of this insidious corruption. It also provides further motivation to rely on decentralized protocols which are a-political like bitcoin and ethereum. Over time these protocols and application of the principles that they stand for will pull power away from corrupt centralised institutions like FTX, the WSJ and the NYT.