New York Times Regrets Pumping Bitcoin Price, Will Focus Future Effort On Starting War Instead

New York Times Regrets Pumping Bitcoin Price, Will Focus Future Effort On Starting War Instead

In a shocking turn of events, the New York Times has announced that it regrets its previous article disparaging Bitcoin's energy usage and will instead return to it's main historical focus on starting unnecessary wars.

The announcement came in the form of a front-page editorial in the Tuesday edition of the Times, which began with the headline "Bitcoin: Our Bad." The editorial went on to explain that the newspaper had been caught up in the hype surrounding the cryptocurrency, and had unfortunately pumped its price through its coverage.

"We got swept up in the frenzy, just like everyone else," the editorial read. "We were all in on hating Bitcoin, but we were wrong. Due to the lack of trust in us as an institution, our coverage actually pumped the price."

The editorial went on to explain that the Time's new focus would be on starting a war, which it believes will be a more profitable and sustainable business model.

"We want to stick with what we know works, and it's clear that war is where the real money is," the editorial continued. "Think about it: wars create demand for weapons, infrastructure, and reconstruction. There's always a winner and a loser, and the winner gets to claim the spoils of war. It's a win-win for us and the US defense industry."

The editorial did not specify which war the Times would be focusing on starting, but hinted that it would likely be one involving the United States.

"We're not afraid to take risks, and we're not afraid to ruffle feathers," the editorial read. "We believe that a war involving the United States would be the most profitable for us, and we're willing to do whatever it takes to make it happen. Most media companies hide what their true intentions are, but we want to be transparent."

Reaction to the Time's announcement was swift and positive. Bitcoin enthusiasts and investors took to social media to express their outrage, but the majority of the mainstream applauded the Times for their Patriotism and support for democracy.

"I am glad that the New York Times is no longer focused on lying about Bitcoin, and now focusing on things that promote Democracy," tweeted Alex Gladstein. "This is a massive win for journalistic freedom and human rights across the world!"

Fox News Pundit, Sean Hannity added, "It's good to see the New York Times, a paper with a long history of far leftist policies, finally start to focus on promoting the strength of the US empire."

Time's editor-in-chief, John Smith, expanded on the newspaper's new direction.

"We're not doing anything that other media outlets haven't done before," Smith said in an interview with the Washington Post. "CNN made a fortune covering the Gulf War. Fox News has been raking in the cash with their coverage of the war on terror. We're just taking it to the next level."

Smith also dismissed concerns about the potential consequences of starting a war, arguing that the Time's primary concern was its bottom line.

"We're not politicians or diplomats. We're the mouth pieces of the ruling class," Smith said. "Our job is to make to do our bidding, and starting a war is the most lucrative way to make our handlers happy. If people get hurt or killed, that's not our problem. We're just doing what we need to do to keep the Times in business."

The Times' announcement has sparked a fierce debate about the role of the media in shaping public opinion and driving market trends. Some have called for tighter regulation of the media, while others have defended the Twist's right to pursue its own business interests.

One thing is certain: the Times' decision to abandon Bitcoin in favor of war has sent shockwaves through the financial world, and it remains to be seen what the long-term consequences of this shift in focus will be.

Tip the author