pull down to refresh
Ah yes, fair. BM has incentive issues like any other media... attend any of the conferences and it's the showcase showdown of scams and shitcoins. They also publish a lot of "articles" that would appear to be organic content on the surface but surely paid placement.
They sell advertising to the highest bidder and MSTR/Saylor generates clicks, so that fits. If any legitimate Bitcoin journalists get published there its purely incidental.
I'd have a very hard time looking past it and not just dismissing the whole thing as a clown show
That should be the case for any vertical though, the most popular media in any niche has the same incentive problem. That's probably why we're on a BBS exchanging ideas and engaging in debate rather than consuming ad-slop right now.
I don't hold disdain for them though, there's legit ideological Bitcoiners in their operations that lend a hand up when they can. They regularly go out of their way to not completely censor legitimate content that can't simply buy it's way to distribution.
To be quite honest JS, my issue here is not with Saylor, but with Bitcoin Magazine, who in addition to my OP, also has this as its pinned tweet:
A long time ago I rather liked reading BM articles at Barnes & Noble, but their culture has morphed into whatever this is.
If I were researching Bitcoin as a newcomer right now in 2026, and I came across this as examples of the most prominent Bitcoin media, I'd have a very hard time looking past it and not just dismissing the whole thing as a clown show; where in the public eye are serious/interesting/insightful matters pertaining to the network being written about now?