My thoughts are that we should never be too quick to judge. Coindesk has a very good reputation. They may be a victim of this just like all of us. We shouldn't automatically assume it was part of an intentional evil scheme without knowing what happened exactly and only judging by the reactions of others.

We certainly don't know and don't have all of the facts.

Perhaps their only fault is that they should have checked things thoroughly before publishing.

A very good reputation? Is this your personal opinion or are you quoting sources here? AFAIK Coindesk used to write articles based on tips from random sources, so they used to be a scam megaphone. I'm not following their articles now, but in 2014/15 they had a bunch of fake articles that turned out to be nothing but lies.
I also saw them pumping altcoins and writing articles about coins they were holding. That's why if you check their columnist's profiles, many of them state that they don't have any cryptocurrencies, so that they can't be accused of being overly positive for their own financial benefit. Now, do I believe that people who write articles about cryptocurrencies for a living don't have any coins? Of course not, do you?

The way I see it is that they're just another media outlet, only their focus is on crypto.  There are a number of them, so if Coindesk buries itself under its own tarnished reputation, there will be another one popping up to take its place and hopefully won't make the same mistakes. 

You've all seen how many bitcoin businesses that have failed since 2009.  Coindesk is just another business, and if they fail they fail.  The community will get over it and find some other news outlet.  I've always questioned the qualifications of most journalists and I have had an abiding distrust of many of them.  As a whole, they make so many factual errors that it's hard to trust them as reliable sources of information.  If you add all the rumors and half-truths that fuel the goings-on of the world of bitcoin, well.  No one should be surprised at this allegation here.

As if it really matters that you're that one pig in the pen that's slightly less covered in shit



We have received information that suggests you or your company will be making news and are reaching out for more information. These are often called “rumors” but today’s rumors are tomorrow’s news. We want to confirm what we might write is true.

CoinDesk journalists work in a fast-moving environment. This means that in some scenarios we may deem it operationally necessary to proceed without response from our subjects.

Add these 2 together and what you get is: We often write our articles based on rumors that we try to confirm, but if we don't get a response fast enough, we'll write an article anyway. Just note that we are trying!

I've actually didn't saw that article, although I use their site quite a lot. They usually have a disclaimer on the bottom of their articles saying that they are not responsible for what is written on the article. Not on all of them of course, but on those independent ones. Don't know if this was the case or not, but of course they should check what they are publishing, and shouldn't allow for scam links to show up on their articles, even when they are not written by them.

We have received information that suggests you or your company will be making news and are reaching out for more information. These are often called “rumors” but today’s rumors are tomorrow’s news. We want to confirm what we might write is true.

CoinDesk journalists work in a fast-moving environment. This means that in some scenarios we may deem it operationally necessary to proceed without response from our subjects.

Add these 2 together and what you get is: We often write our articles based on rumors that we try to confirm, but if we don't get a response fast enough, we'll write an article anyway. Just note that we are trying!
[/quote]

Exactly, so they dont really care about the accuracy of their reporting. They are basically just a marketing outlet for the parent company.

I wouldn't put all the blame on coindesk though. I mean, These guys are just trying meet their target and set goals. The part where I'm not so good with them is their inability to take even a few minutes to go through submissions. Coindesk has influence in the crypto space and any little slide would make thousands of noobs lose money. They'd just have to be careful next time.

Naturally when they are angry, because it should not be done because it can damage the reputation, and this can be very detrimental.

Would you describe what unprofessional and professional means? You are saying things that are contradicting to your statement.

What can we expect with media? They can choose the sides that they want too or they will choose your side if you pay them good amount of $$.

They need to really reflect on what happened and take full responsibility. Looking the procedures and policies for sure.