Major Media Outlets Have Said Little About Bitcoin In Q2

Bitcoin may be shaking up the markets and gradually establishing itself as a pillar of modern finance, but it remains curiously understated in the columns of the major traditional media. In the second quarter of 2025, while crypto reached a new all-time high, its media presence proved to be meager. An absence all the more striking as it reflects neither the intensity of its adoption nor the economic upheavals it causes. The latest report from the Perception firm draws a clear conclusion: Bitcoin is disruptive, and some prefer not to talk about it!

An Absence That Speaks Volumes

Silence can be deafening. While bitcoin was reaching new heights in the second quarter, the big names of economic press remained surprisingly silent.

According to Perception’s study, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, and the New York Times, pillars of global financial information, dedicated only 13 articles to bitcoin during this period. A barely symbolic coverage, just 2% of the total volume recorded by the 18 media outlets studied.

For a technology that redefines global finance, this discretion raises questions. The report goes beyond simple tallying: it highlights a clear editorial divide between media that engage in debate and those who persist in acting as if bitcoin does not exist.

Three distinct approaches emerge: enthusiastic adoption, willful blindness, and deep-rooted skepticism. This media silence is therefore not negligence but an editorial choice that says a lot.

Opposing Narratives for the Same Asset

In this fragmented landscape, the voice of the media varies radically according to their editorial line. While Forbes, CNBC, and Barron’s offer comprehensive coverage, sometimes even optimistic, “elitist” media like the Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times stand out by their withdrawal.

Result: bitcoin’s perception varies widely depending on the media consulted. The study notes an almost equal distribution between positive (31%), neutral (41%), and negative (28%) articles.

This divergence in tone also reveals an influence strategy. Some media do not just ignore bitcoin; they favor fearmongering narratives: crime, money laundering, instability.

Others venture into more analytical grounds, exploring institutional adoption, regulatory challenges, or the environmental impact of mining. The same asset, three radically different angles.

This contrast creates a fragmented reading of reality, where the reader only grasps one facet of a much broader phenomenon. While bitcoin continues to attract capital, institutions, and states, its media coverage remains fragmented, even caricatured.

Under-Informed by Editorial Choice?

The report’s final finding is unequivocal: this media polarization generates a worrying information asymmetry. Readers who rely solely on mainstream media to understand economic dynamics are largely under-informed about an asset that has become strategic.

This imbalance has consequences. It helps maintain a divide between those who understand bitcoin’s technological stakes and those who, lacking reliable information, still see it as an irrational bubble or a criminal tool. This media inertia creates a gap between the market’s real evolution and the public perception.

But as is often the case with silent revolutions, it is not the most prestigious media that hold the pen of History. It is those who dare to look where others turn away their eyes.

At a time when Bitcoin is shaping a new global financial architecture, the absence of coverage in major media is not an oversight but a signal. A refusal to see change. Yet, history moves forward, with or without their pen, and investments have exploded.