Clearly, they’re not ready for Bitcoin. It would be comical if it weren’t so serious.
Here’s a timeline so far:
27 Nov 2023: It all started when the BBC published an article that confused transactions with payments and exaggerated Bitcoin’s water usage by 1,000x. This misleading report has caused ongoing issues.
More details here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67564205
5 Dec 2023: I filed a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for details on the editorial process and fact-checking for the article.
21 Dec 2023: The BBC denied my FOI request, citing the journalism exemption in the FOI Act.
10 Jan 2024: I appealed the BBC's decision. They refused an internal review for FOI requests related to "journalism," so I reached out again, asking for guidance to break the impasse. The BBC's response? Contact the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).
https://ico.org.uk/
19 Mar 2024: Submitted a complaint to the ICO, which handles data protection and FOI issues in the UK, requesting they overturn the BBC's denial of my FOI request because it was in the public interest. ICO Case Reference: IC-295774-D0L0.
19 Mar 2024: Emailed Joe Tidy, the BBC’s Crypto Correspondent, regarding inaccuracies in a Bitcoin article. Joe confirmed he passed my email to Chris Vallance. I offered to assist in fact-checking for accurate coverage.
21 Mar 2024: I reached again to Joe Tidy and now the BBC Press Office, offering them the chance to comment about the misrepresentation of Bitcoin. I specifically referenced the BBC article and asked for their response by 28 March 2024.
18 Jun 2024: The ICO completed their investigation into my FOI complaint regarding the BBC’s article on Bitcoin. They concluded that the BBC is exempt under the "journalism, art, and literature" derogation, meaning they aren't obliged to disclose the requested info.
19 Jun 2024: I emailed Chris Vallance, the author of the BBC article "Every Bitcoin payment 'uses a swimming pool of water,'" to address inaccuracies. After hitting barriers via other channels, I requested a discussion about the editorial process. He never responded.
25 Jun 2024: Received a response from Monica Soriano on behalf of Chris Vallance, redirecting me to BBC Editorial Complaints. This was the first time I’d been told of this option. My previous attempts via webforms yielded no case references and seemed to disappear into cyberspace.
26 Jul 2024: Submitted a complaint to BBC Editorial Complaints via the phone because teh webform was asking for my address. I was told I would receive a response within 10 working days Ref: CAS-7858989-Z7B7B5.
4 Jul 2024: The BBC Complaints team informed me via email that my complaint has been referred to the relevant people and they’re still looking into it. They’ve asked for more patience while they continue their review.
25 Jul 2024: The BBC Complaints team apologised for not meeting their response timeline. They suggested escalating the matter to Ofcom while they continue to look into the complaint.
21 Aug 2024: Escalated my complaint to Ofcom after continued delays from the BBC. Ofcom acknowledged receipt but noted they typically don’t provide individual outcomes. Another deadend.
13 Sep 2024: Received another update from the BBC Complaints team. Due to a high volume of cases, they’ve informed me it will take longer than the usual 20 working days to reply. More waiting, still no resolution in sight.
19 Sep 2024: Received a response from Linda Lewis, a senior journalist at the BBC. She apologised for the delayed reply and defended the article on Bitcoin's water usage, citing their editorial process and impartiality. Despite my concerns, they stand by their reporting. Still no resolution.
https://x.com/DecentraSuze/status/1837045230169694707
22 Sep 2024 - Responded to the BBC Complaints team, questioning why they ignored the evidence I submitted and chose to rely on a discredited source to verify already discredited information. Still seeking accountability.
https://x.com/DecentraSuze/status/1837789045126037657
26 Sep 2024: Partnered with the Digital Assets Research Institute to submit a formal rebuttal. The rebuttal addressed every point raised by the BBC and Alex de Vries, calling for a retraction or, at the very least, an acknowledgment of the misleading claims.
https://x.com/DecentraSuze/status/1839281678964928595
28 Sep 2024: On a Saturday evening, I received an email from BBC Complaints, asking me to submit further details by post. After 10 months of back-and-forth, they now claim they can’t access external Google Drives.
This is 2024, and they want me to send information through the post!
Here’s the irony: After 10 months of delays over a tech issue (Bitcoin), the BBC—a major media outlet—has asked me to send details by post! While Bitcoin pushes tech frontiers, the BBC is stuck using snail mail because their web form can’t handle more than 2,000 characters.
This journey to hold the BBC accountable has been long and exhausting, including countless phone calls not in the timeline, but it's a fight worth continuing.
Transparency and accountability from a public broadcaster are vital. The battle isn’t over yet—who knows how long it’ll drag on.
Watch this space.
In ongoing efforts to promote accuracy in media reporting on Bitcoin, I've partnered with the Digital Assets Research Institute (DARI) to draft a detailed rebuttal to a misleading BBC article published on 30 November 2023.
The BBC’s formal response to my complaint showed a disappointing disregard for the substantial evidence and expert analysis provided. To understand the context behind their dismissive reply, you can read the full text here:
https://x.com/DecentraSuze/status/1837045230169694707
The article by Chris Vallance from November 2023 relied heavily on Alex de Vries-Gao commentary, which lacks a foundation in solid research.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-67564205
The lack of rigor in the BBC’s approach and their reliance on a single, debunked perspective—such as de Vries’s—compromises the integrity of their reporting and spreads misinformation.
https://x.com/DecentraSuze/status/1837045695083082162
DARI’s experts crafted a rebuttal addressing each of the BBC's and de Vries’s points with precision.
We're asking for a retraction of any claims based on de Vries’s debunked work, or at the very least, a public acknowledgment of our concerns.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1DuMLL7-k556AOIOloUdG5Pzl1OKVFzUU/edit?filetype=msword
The claim that "every Bitcoin payment uses a swimming pool of water" is not just scientifically inaccurate, but also misleading. These types of claims lack methodological soundness.
It has been incredibly challenging to raise this concern, as the BBC has continuously tied me up in bureaucracy.
https://x.com/DecentraSuze/status/1837116608407322660
We’re urging the BBC to correct their narrative and provide a more balanced view of Bitcoin's environmental impact. Media accountability and accurate reporting should remain at the forefront of the Bitcoin conversation.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/09/09/new-research-shows-bitcoin-mining-cuts-carbon-emissions/
