I know, duh, I was being sarcastic and referring to what the article is trying to frame.

> to convey all the facts, which it does.

Conveying all facts alone isn't enough, because when you start mixing some facts to influence the reader's interpretation, you are not being honest. I think this is called "priming" in journalism.

>Priming - Introducing certain information early to influence how readers interpret subsequent information, even when the early details aren't directly relevant to the main story.

The article could avoid mentioning Monero altogether, maybe at the end state that he wouldn't have been busted if he had kept using Monero, but they needed to muddy the water to give an illusion to the reader that big brother surveillance is over the top and you should never trust crypto privacy, which is not true.

> I was being sarcastic

It's best to never use sarcasm online unless it's explicitly declared as such at the time of posting. Your comment will be taken literally.

> they needed to muddy the water to give an illusion to the reader that big brother surveillance is over the top and you should never trust crypto privacy

This impression was given for Bitcoin, whereas the reverse impression was given for Monero. These are as expected.