[theanarcrist]

I suspect part of the motivation is to scoop the reporter's own story as a passive aggressive reprisal. It also serves to reduce the chance of future reporters on negative topics to talk directly to Coinbase since they've already showed they're willing to break stories before they publish.

[galaxyLogic]

Yes isn't this a rather common strategy, "Be pro-active, not reactive".

When the actual story comes out it is not such a big news any more, because it is not news any more. First impressions often last, so now the first impressions is that the story is fake.

So even if their response does amplify the story, it might amplify a good story rather than a bad one. So go even so far as to say "all publicity is good publicity"

[JeremyNT]

I get that this strategy can work, but are there really that many people who will be swayed by a pr statement from coinbase? I'm primed to assume their version is filled with lies and spin, and I'm waiting for the piece in the NYT to cut through the corporate pr bullshit.

[treis]

Personally, I don't have a lot of confidence in the objectivity of the NYT around race and related social issues. Not to the extent of "lies and spin" but not exactly accurate reporting either. The truth is likely going lie somewhere between the NYT and Coinbase versions.

[AsyncAwait]

The thing is, NYT has had its own reputation damaged to the point where such preemptive posts may work.

[galaxyLogic]

Well you have an eye for objectivity. Many people don't. And whenever there are two conflicting versions of a story it sows some doubt on both of them. We know this from politics already. So from a pure PR and game-theoretic standpoint I think they made the right (pro-active) move.

[AsyncAwait]

> Well you have an eye for objectivity.

The NYT is far from objective, so this may actually work.

[robswc]

I would personally trust coinbase over NYT at this point...

Especially given the circumstances of the article.

[thu2111]

Well, speak for yourself. My own assessment is the opposite: that the NYT is highly likely to assume anything an 'oppressed minority' tells them is true, even if it's not, and meanwhile a company is highly likely to be more objective: they have every incentive to investigate complaints yet also not self-flagellate if the complaints are false.

That said, I think Popper specifically has done a decent job with tech stories in the past. So I reserve judgement. But only because of him, not because of the NYT.

[ntsplnkv2]

> When the actual story comes out it is not such a big news any more, because it is not news any more.

Why not? I was never going to read said article. Now I am, based on this post, alone. This was never going to be headline news.

> First impressions often last, so now the first impressions is that the story is fake.

Except my first impression is that it is real, not fake, based on this response, because companies lie all the damn time. I imagine many don't believe in company PR at all.

[peteretep]

Their PR agency is asleep at the wheel; there's no way this doesn't amplify the story

[gabereiser]

Streisand effect

[compsciphd]

what major media outlet would refuse to talk to the subject of an article? That would seem to undermine their credibility.