1.6 million BTC at a price of $2,739 would mean that the property sold for .... drumroll .... 4.3824 BILLION dollars 

Well that's to be expected. I take it it was 1.6 millions worth of bitcoins? Not the worst mistake I've seen to be honest.

I think the media still needs to get some things straight. But in this case I guess they just didn't care what they wrote. It's not that difficult to get the current price of Bitcoin and geting to know the actual price of the property in question.

Its the media there allways getting things wrong hehe but they have to write things wrong sometimes to make a good story.

For journalism, that was pretty accurate. After all, getting those articles out there, that's the most important thing. Only nerds care about content, and heck, give them some slack, the numbers could've been off much more!

I think a major problem in the press today is the pressure to make money. This means a lot of articles needs to be delivered to generate 'clicks', so there's no time to do proper research, as there's always the next newsbit that needs to hit the digital presses. So even if some journalists wanted to be better, they're often forced into this news-whoring by their media-firm.

And sometimes I wonder if some of the journalists simply are not the brightest bulbs in the drawer. It's also sad that a lot of journalists seems to be more interested in the 'story', than facts, ideas and visions.

Personally I do not have much respect for the average journalist anymore, to the extent that I would decline any and all requests for talking with them or being featured.

As everyone knows hindsight is 20 20

i forgot where it was posted, but some site said bitcoin was a corporation and that each btc was like a common stock (or something like that) that is issued by the corporation. that was pretty hilarious.

I talk to BBC editor weekly about errors in Bitcoin reporting. 3 times this year they've referred to The Bitcoin Foundation as ''overseers/controller/owner of Bitcoin''