Agreed that KalshMarket feels skeevy and that this is troubling, but not as much as ESPN and every pregame shows carpetbombing of odds before kickoff.
But, to the SPJ's principle of "Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage."
How do you want to treat insider journalism? Shams, Schefter, Rappaport, etc. all operate as tools of the agents and GMs. Do they, and their employers, violate the SPJ oath?
It’s a good question. To even go broader, any kind of relationship a journalist has a source could be considered “Favored treatment for special interests,” right?
If I would make an argument to counter your point, I guess I would land on the fact that the news insiders report is also of public interest to sports fans. It doesn’t solely exist to drive money to a prediction market. It’s an arbitrary line in the sand, but that’s where I’d start.
You know I agree with you on the pregame shows. The difference I think would be that sports books are somewhat regulated, where as the prediction markets aren’t. Again, an arbitrary one.
I don't see this as a huge issue, because if a journalist was heavily promoting one side of a bet and shows you that bet, it would look distasteful. You'd know that journalist wasn't a quality one.
They would lose readers as a result. Same as if a Youtuber posted a "Top 5 Cars for Road Trips" and was sponsored for #1.
Also, not all articles have to take sides or promote an event. For example, my newsletter presents news in crypto tech. If I don't provide an opinion and just the facts, would it be unethical to embed a Polymarket section there?
Great post! I’m with you on this. Too many gambling companies getting involved in too many spaces where they don’t belong. It needs to calm down for the good of society, and like you pointed out, for the good of journalism
So glad to see this. I'm convinced that too many people--including some students in my Hofstra journalism class last semester--have come to believe that sports gambling is not only OK but righty promoted. (Lots of sports editors seem to agree), and now this Substack thing!
Late to the game.
Agreed that KalshMarket feels skeevy and that this is troubling, but not as much as ESPN and every pregame shows carpetbombing of odds before kickoff.
But, to the SPJ's principle of "Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage."
How do you want to treat insider journalism? Shams, Schefter, Rappaport, etc. all operate as tools of the agents and GMs. Do they, and their employers, violate the SPJ oath?
It’s a good question. To even go broader, any kind of relationship a journalist has a source could be considered “Favored treatment for special interests,” right?
If I would make an argument to counter your point, I guess I would land on the fact that the news insiders report is also of public interest to sports fans. It doesn’t solely exist to drive money to a prediction market. It’s an arbitrary line in the sand, but that’s where I’d start.
You know I agree with you on the pregame shows. The difference I think would be that sports books are somewhat regulated, where as the prediction markets aren’t. Again, an arbitrary one.
I liked gambling better when it felt slightly illegal. Now every possession has a promo code.
I don't see this as a huge issue, because if a journalist was heavily promoting one side of a bet and shows you that bet, it would look distasteful. You'd know that journalist wasn't a quality one.
They would lose readers as a result. Same as if a Youtuber posted a "Top 5 Cars for Road Trips" and was sponsored for #1.
Also, not all articles have to take sides or promote an event. For example, my newsletter presents news in crypto tech. If I don't provide an opinion and just the facts, would it be unethical to embed a Polymarket section there?
What is the difference between what can be done now and linking to it in an article?
Great post! I’m with you on this. Too many gambling companies getting involved in too many spaces where they don’t belong. It needs to calm down for the good of society, and like you pointed out, for the good of journalism
So glad to see this. I'm convinced that too many people--including some students in my Hofstra journalism class last semester--have come to believe that sports gambling is not only OK but righty promoted. (Lots of sports editors seem to agree), and now this Substack thing!
This is a buying shares company is that correct