When Bitcoin first appeared in 2009, it was understandable that traditional financial publications like The Economist and The Financial Times dismissed it. A mysterious internet money with no central authority, no physical form, and backed by no government? Naturally, it seemed like a niche curiosity or, at worst, a passing fad.
But here we are, 15 years later, and Bitcoin has proven itself to be anything but irrelevant. It has been the best-performing asset of the last decade by orders of magnitude. It has spurred global innovation, sparked debates about the very nature of money, and challenged centuries-old institutions. And yet, these venerable publications still largely treat it with disdain.
Why?
This question deserves an answer—not just for Bitcoin enthusiasts, but for the countless readers who turn to these outlets for insight. The Economist and The Financial Times position themselves as the stewards of global economic understanding. They claim to help their readers navigate complexity, to explain what matters, and to expose what is new and significant. And yet, when it comes to Bitcoin, they have largely failed their readers.
Early Misunderstanding Was Forgivable
In Bitcoin’s early days, skepticism was reasonable, even necessary. Revolutionary ideas often begin as fringe. The financial world has seen its share of scams, bubbles, and vaporware over the years, and Bitcoin could easily have been just another one.
But now? Fifteen years later? Bitcoin has weathered countless challenges. It has survived massive price crashes, relentless government crackdowns, and endless media mockery. It has grown from an obscure project to a global network used by millions. Major institutions, from Fortune 500 companies to national governments, are adopting it. And yet The Economist and The Financial Times still treat it as if it were 2011—mocking, dismissing, and underestimating its significance.
What Explains This Continued Failure?
Institutional Bias
One possibility is that these publications are too tied to the legacy financial system. Bitcoin is not just a new kind of asset; it is a direct challenge to the traditional order. It questions the role of central banks, the value of fiat currencies, and the necessity of intermediaries. For publications that cater to bankers, policymakers, and institutional investors, embracing Bitcoin might feel like biting the hand that feeds them.
But is this a good excuse? If The Economist and The Financial Times are beholden to their advertisers or their institutional readership, they should at least acknowledge this conflict of interest. Instead, they continue to position themselves as impartial observers of global finance while failing to give Bitcoin the serious attention it deserves.
Ideological Resistance
Another explanation might be ideological. Bitcoin is a fundamentally anti-establishment technology. It is rooted in the ideas of decentralization, individual sovereignty, and distrust of authority. These ideas are uncomfortable for institutions that have built their reputations on being the voice of authority. For some writers and editors, acknowledging Bitcoin’s success might feel like admitting that their entire worldview needs an update.
But is this not the very point of journalism—to confront uncomfortable truths, to challenge assumptions, and to evolve in the face of new evidence? By clinging to their biases, these publications risk irrelevance in a world that is rapidly changing.
Lack of Understanding
Perhaps the simplest explanation is that many journalists and editors at these publications simply do not understand Bitcoin. It is a complex, multidisciplinary phenomenon, requiring knowledge of cryptography, computer science, economics, and game theory. Misunderstanding it in 2009 was forgivable. Misunderstanding it in 2024 is not.
If these publications lack the expertise to analyze Bitcoin, they should invest in it. They have no shortage of resources. They have teams of analysts covering everything from oil markets to agricultural subsidies to obscure economic indicators. Why not Bitcoin?
The Fear of Being Wrong Again
Here’s another possibility: ego. Both The Economist and The Financial Times have been wrong about Bitcoin so many times over the past 15 years that admitting they were wrong might feel humiliating. They have called it a bubble, a scam, a failure, and worse. They have predicted its demise more times than anyone can count. To now turn around and take it seriously might feel like admitting defeat.
But isn’t that what intellectual integrity demands? Isn’t the willingness to admit mistakes and revise one’s views the hallmark of serious journalism?
What’s the Real Cost of This Failure?
The cost of this failure is not just to these publications’ reputations; it is to their readers. Millions of people rely on The Economist and The Financial Times to help them understand the world. By dismissing or mocking Bitcoin, these outlets have deprived their readers of the opportunity to engage with one of the most important technological and financial innovations of our time.
Imagine how differently their readers might have approached Bitcoin if, even five years ago, these publications had said: “This is something worth understanding. It’s not perfect, it has risks, but it’s important.” Instead, they continued to parrot the same tired dismissals, leaving their audiences uninformed and unprepared.
Is Change Possible?
There are signs that the tide may be turning. As major financial institutions like BlackRock and Fidelity embrace Bitcoin, the traditional media may feel compelled to follow suit. But will they? And if they do, will it be too little, too late?
Why Does This Matter?
Because Bitcoin is not just a financial story. It is a technological story, an economic story, a political story, and, ultimately, a human story. It is about the power of ideas to reshape the world. By failing to engage with it seriously, The Economist and The Financial Times have failed not just their readers but themselves.
So I ask again: why? Why, after 15 years, do these publications continue to get Bitcoin so wrong? And what does that failure tell us about them—and about the world they claim to explain?
Explore More:
Leave a Reply