Forbes Pulls Article Criticizing BBC’s Bitcoin Reporting Sparking Concerns Over Journalistic Integrity

In a recent development, Forbes took down an article that criticized the BBC's reporting on Bitcoin, sparking discussion about journalistic integrity and transparency. 

The article, written by Susie Violet Ward and published on September 4th, 2024, examined the BBC's controversial coverage of Bitcoin's environmental impact, specifically focusing on water usage claims that misrepresented the facts.

The original Forbes article can still be accessed through an archived version: "BBC Bitcoin Coverage Raises Concern Over Its Journalism And Trust."

Background on the Controversy

The original BBC article, written by technology reporter Chris Vallance, claimed that every Bitcoin payment required the use of a substantial amount of water, a statement derived from research by Alex DeVries. 

However, Forbes’ now-removed piece pointed out that the BBC inaccurately referred to “payments” instead of “transactions,” exaggerating the environmental impact by a factor of 1,000. 

Cambridge University’s Alex Neumüller and other experts emphasized that the study cited by the BBC dealt with transactions, not payments—a critical difference since one transaction can contain multiple payments.

DeVries, the author of the study, clarified that his research focused on transactions, but the BBC had misunderstood and incorrectly presented the findings. 

In response to the inaccuracies, Neumüller from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance noted that the water usage referred to in the BBC article likely pertained to indirect water consumption associated with energy production, rather than the direct impact of Bitcoin mining itself.

DeVries' Background and Controversies

DeVries, often criticized for spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) about Bitcoin, has previously worked with central banking institutions, raising concerns about potential biases in his research.

While his affiliation with the Dutch Central Bank may not directly influence his findings, many in the industry argue that his background should have been disclosed, given Bitcoin's disruptive potential to traditional finance systems.

This aspect of the story, which Ward emphasized, was largely overlooked by the BBC.

Forbes' Takedown and Timeline

Ward’s article was live on Forbes for only a few hours before it was taken down. Notably, the article was published in the morning UK time and removed early in the US—indicating that someone likely intervened quickly.

The speed of the takedown has raised eyebrows, with speculation that legal pressure or reputational concerns prompted Forbes' decision.

1. September 4th, 2024, Morning (UK Time): Ward's article is published on Forbes.
2. September 4th, 2024, Early Morning (US Time): The article is taken down, sparking immediate backlash from the Bitcoin community.
3. September 4th, 2024, Afternoon (UK Time): Archived versions of the article begin circulating.

After Forbes took down her article, Ward posted her progress for the BBC article's retraction via social media.

A week later, the BBC responded to her concerns. In a series of posts on X, Ward expressed frustration with the BBC's response, feeling that the organization was "doubling down" on what she termed misinformation.

Ward highlighted that the BBC admitted to using "payment" and "transaction" interchangeably in their headline to simplify the language for readers.

However, she argued that this distinction is critical because confusing the two leads to a gross overestimation of Bitcoin's water usage by a factor of 1,000 or more.

Additionally, Ward criticized the BBC's complaint process, stating that she was required to deliver responses over the phone, making it more difficult to address serious concerns.

Editorial Oversight and Public Trust

Ward's now-unpublished piece also raised concerns about the BBC’s editorial processes.

She questioned the organization’s refusal to disclose its fact-checking methods or respond to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests seeking clarification on how the article was vetted.

The BBC has used journalism exemptions under the FOI Act to avoid providing details, which has only fueled concerns about transparency.

Critics argue that no editorial rules were broken, making the takedown of Ward's article all the more curious.

The lack of an official explanation from Forbes and the absence of accountability from the BBC have deepened suspicions about the motivations behind the removal of Ward’s work.

However, it is important to note that we reached out to Ward, and she declined to comment on the takedown of her Forbes article.

Call for Reform

Ward's article concluded with a call for the BBC to improve its journalistic standards and enhance transparency. 

She urged the broadcaster to establish clearer guidelines for fact-checking, especially for complex subjects like Bitcoin. 

Additionally, the article suggested that the BBC should reform its internal processes to ensure better accountability and greater responsiveness to public complaints.

Criticism of the BBC’s Bitcoin coverage is well-documented. Since 2013, various outlets, including Bitcoin-focused platforms, have pointed out the BBC’s consistently negative bias in its reporting on the asset.

Ward's piece highlighted that this negative bias has persisted, even as peer-reviewed research shows Bitcoin’s potential positive environmental impacts.

Public Reaction and Next Steps

The swift removal of Ward's Forbes article has further intensified scrutiny. 

While Ward's article criticized the BBC, it did not accuse the broadcaster of breaking any rules.

As a public institution, the BBC isn't directly accountable for every journalistic error, but the incident has prompted calls for greater transparency and responsibility in reporting on complex issues like Bitcoin.

Some speculate that legal pressure or reputational concerns led to its unpublishing, though Forbes has not issued an official statement on the matter. 

Bitcoin advocates argue that both Ward's article and the BBC’s original piece underline the need for more accurate and balanced reporting on the environmental impact of Bitcoin.

This incident underscores the broader issue of maintaining journalistic integrity in the digital age, where rapid publication cycles and complex topics require careful scrutiny to ensure public trust.

Forbes has not commented on why Ward's article was removed, and the BBC has not issued a statement in response to the criticism outlined in the now-unpublished piece.