15 comments

[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 48.1 ms ] thread
Article as it originally appeared: https://archive.fo/6taZ8

Discussion of article's flaws here: https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1491361991541538817

Thanks for archiving this. So basically a pump and dump rug pull and you have a 'self-made' crypto millionaire story, all for the clicks and the BBC are now praising scammers? The coin called 'Orfano' founded by the same person [0] shutdown in October and that wasn't even mentioned in the article.

So much for high quality journalism. /s

Now I remember why I cancelled my TV licence since the BBC in 2022 loves to spread misleading stories and misinformation like this, there is no effort in investigating the truth anymore.

They have done this sort of misinformation like this before haven't they?

Downvoters: It is true isn't it? The BBC has just been caught spreading misinformation. Otherwise why did they take it down in the first place?

[0] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/orfano/

Aren't serious journalists supposed to publish retractions, or corrections to the article? But they simply removed it, and to make it worse, they even pretend it never existed, returning a 404 instead of "this article has been removed".
Might be a legal thing.
"Due to a court order/legal settlement, this article has been removed."

But they didn't post that, did they?

(comment deleted)
This has all the hallmarks of someone buying their way into good PR. This guy basically ran a crypto pump and dump and he’s now trying to buy his way into good public image over the complaints of the people he scammed.

Unfortunately some naïve journalist fell for the “crypto millionaire donates to food banks” hook and published a puff piece, at least until someone higher up noticed and pulled it.

The journalist prob. didn't "fell" into it, it is how media works these days: "publish first for eye balls, verify later". This strategy is described in the book Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator
But what benefit does that serve the BBC? Outside of the world service, it's funding doesn't depend on views.
If it it fails to succeed by the standards of commercial media then the government can say that it is not competitive, not a good use of tax-payer money and kill it as they repeatedly threaten to do. It is an incredibly narrow slice of the UK political spectrum that both sincerely believes in the BBC's mission to do public interest journalism and realistically expects it to be a success in that mission.
This type of shit happens all the time unfortunately. The perpetual news cycle is what's to blame.
This looks like the lawyers have got involved. It’s not just some fresh faced hack pushing out a PR and having it online before the editor approved it, they put a fair bit of work into the story