Wall Street’s Blind Spot: Bitcoin Got Ghosted by Major Financial Media in Q2

Bitcoin just pulled off its quietest quarter yet—while institutions piled in, the financial press looked the other way.

The silence is deafening

No front-page meltdowns. No breathless 'death of crypto' hot takes. Just radio static from the usual suspects—as if BlackRock's $20B ETF and MicroStrategy's latest billion-dollar buy didn't happen.

Old money's FOMO playbook

Meanwhile, pension funds and corporate treasuries kept stacking sats behind the scenes. Guess they'd rather beg forgiveness than ask permission from the same outlets still pushing 60/40 portfolios.

Next time CNBC runs a 'Bitcoin is dead' segment, check the ticker—odds are some exec just bought the dip.

‘Willful Blindness’ and ‘Skepticism’: How Bitcoin’s Media Coverage Divides the Industry 

In their latest report, Perception revealed that in Q2, 1,116 articles were published about bitcoin across 18 major media outlets. The sentiment was split: 31% displayed a positive tone, 41% remained neutral, and 28% adopted a negative tone.

“Mainstream media coverage of Bitcoin in Q2 2025 revealed a deeply polarized narrative landscape,” the report read.

Furthermore, the report identified three distinct editorial narratives shaping Bitcoin coverage: ‘willful blindness,’ ‘persistent skepticism,’ and ‘enthusiastic adoption.’ The former narrative is exemplified by the limited coverage from elite financial publications.

Perception highlighted that the Wall Street Journal published only 2 articles about Bitcoin. Meanwhile, the Financial Times and the New York Times each published 11.

“The FT and WSJ—outlets that breathlessly report every basis point MOVE in Italian bond yields—have decided the best-performing asset of the century warrants less coverage than European Central Bank meeting minutes,” Perception stated.

This disparity in coverage creates what Perception describes as “massive information asymmetry” for investors. Those relying on these media outlets are missing out on critical information about Bitcoin. 

As a result, investors who turn to media outlets that acknowledge Bitcoin’s relevance and performance have an informational advantage.

“This editorial blindness from agenda-setting outlets reveals more about their institutional capture than Bitcoin’s relevance….Bitcoin doesn’t need the WSJ any more than Netflix needed Blockbuster’s approval…The question isn’t whether Bitcoin is legitimate enough for the Wall Street Journal. It’s whether the Wall Street Journal still matters,” the firm added.

Interestingly, while The Wall Street Journal published the fewest articles on Bitcoin, its sister publication, Barron’s, published 65. Although the publication was ranked as the third most negative outlet, the higher number of articles indicated that the latter did not completely ignore Bitcoin.

“The Barron’s paradox exposes the WSJ’s editorial dysfunction. Is the WSJ choosing institutional dinner party approval over market reality?” the report noted.

Perception’s analysis highlighted that of the 65 articles, 48% were neutral, 25% positive, and 27% negative. All the articles covering institutional adoption and banking and finance were in a negative tone, while only 35.7% of the articles on investment vehicles shared the same tone. 

Besides Barron’s, other traditional media outlets like The Independent and Fox News also contributed to a ‘persistent skepticism’ narrative. All of them focused heavily on crime and controversy.

The Independent published 45 articles, of which 42% were negative. Furthermore, Fox News released 32 articles. 38% of the articles were negative.

“Their high-volume negative coverage at least acknowledges Bitcoin’s newsworthiness—a step ahead of elite outlets pretending it doesn’t exist,” Perception wrote.

Despite this, Bitcoin still received plenty of positive coverage. Forbes, CNBC, and Fortune leaned toward ‘enthusiastic adoption’, emphasizing institutional and retail adoption trends, Bitcoin mining, and market analysis. 

Forbes produced 194 articles, 43% of which were positive. CNBC was second with 141 articles, 42% of which were positive. Lastly, 25% of Fortune’s 117 articles favored a similar approach.

“Forbes has essentially replaced the Wall Street Journal as the financial publication of record for the digital asset economy. While the WSJ clings to 20th-century asset classes, Forbes covers what’s actually moving markets and reshaping finance,” Perception remarked.

Notably, Forbes and CNBC also provided strong positive coverage of Bitcoin in Q1 2025. Meanwhile, Barron’s coverage was comparatively more positive. However, in Q2, the tone has shifted.