I love it when a single article does such a great job of exemplifying so many facets of bad journalism:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/crypto-bitcoin-market-strength/677643/

Some gem quotes:

"The fact that no one can agree on what crypto is even for hasn’t kept the market capitalization of all cryptocurrencies from surpassing $2.5 trillion. Indeed, its utter pointlessness may have even helped. The lack of consensus about crypto’s purpose might be the very reason it never dies." (I'm reading this as Bitcoin - clearly zero research has been done given how many people use it as a store of value, and to protect their wealth from criminals and tyrants)

"bitcoin is approaching one of its periodic “halvings”—moments, programmed into its source code, when the rate of new bitcoin production gets cut by 50 percent, which reliably causes demand to jump" (How do you nearly perfectly describe a halving and then fumble the ball and describe it as a demand and not a supply effect?)

"No central bank was needed to verify who owned how much bitcoin. Thanks to cryptography and some clever game theory, the network itself could keep track of that. Technologically, it has no single point of failure: Every computer in the network maintains a complete record of every transaction, which means no single entity can shut it off. This was a huge part of bitcoin’s early appeal. It was decentralized, but could still be trusted as a store of value. But to what end? What was it for?" (You literally just said it was a store of value. It's for storing value.)

"The trouble is that convincingly debunking all the pro-crypto rationales at the same time is impossible. Each rebuttal can itself be rebutted" (Maybe your arguments are just bad?)

Then at the end:

"Support for this project was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation." (WFHF's main goals are pushing DEI and climate propaganda - just check their website.)