I have long been a fan of the NYT, however, over the years as I have had the chance to work with Journalists there on stories, I have had to accept that it is not without its flaws. The worse flaw, that I have seen, is a dogged determination to write the story that fits the headline. And if the facts don't match the headline, then just throw chaff in the hope that nobody notices... Take this morning's big story from Eric Lipton and Ken Vogel with the headline "Cigars, Booze, Money: How a Lobbying Blitz Made Sports Betting Ubiquitous". Sounds sleazy right? Sounds like the US has a problem with manipulating law-makers into doing bad things that damage society right? Well here is the problem... How do you write an article that fits that headline, when in fact Sports Betting has been a successful example of how to demolish a source of revenue for organized crime, divert massive amounts of funds to the communities of gamblers and provide control and protection for the players? This quote tells you all you need to know... Instead of saying that legal sports betting has already delivered $410 million in BRAND NEW TAX INCOME for States and that the number continues to grow as many of these markets have only just launched; they write that it is "$150 million below the $560 million the group predicted". That is exactly the kind of sensationalist number juggling that the journalists accuse the Sports Betting lobbyists of. It's a real shame that the NYT has not done a better job here. The Sportsbetting industry is not perfect; but at least things like the control of bonus campaigns, ads, sports sponsorship and problem gambling are now within the control of regulators and their communities. Something that could not be said before PASPA was struck down as those issues still existed (free bets are NOT A NEW THING ERIC & KEN!!!!) but before, when there was only the illegal and/or off-shore market, there was nothing they could do to control it. All in all, not a great day or a great piece of work from the NYT....
Danny Bogus
1y
Well stated, David. I believe there is a general lack of awareness and appreciation for the history around prohibition, and its negative consequences, in the real-money gaming industry as a whole. This spans sports, casino, and lottery. With alcohol prohibition, it's a more widely known component of our history and, almost universally the public accepts the regulated market for alcoholic beverages as the correct balance of market freedoms and regulatory frameworks. As an industry, I think any outward effort we can make to highlight the historical perils of gambling prohibition would help the general public to understand that the regulated movement is one that is necessary, long overdue, and the only pathway that can enhance game integrity and social responsibility. I would much rather have lobbyists who are informed about the nuances of the real-money gaming industry collaborating with lawmakers to path-find a balanced regulatory framework (which is how it works for every other industry in our country) than what we had in the past. Just recall this quote from AG Robert F. Kennedy about 60 years ago, not so far in our past, made in testimony to congressional members:
Peter Murray
1y
Reporting on the sector is rarely balanced or impartial. Try catching up on the reporting in the U.K. and it is the ‘headline’ that drives the narrative. I hope I am no appoligst for the sector and am happy call them out for their many mistakes but I think all we want is a fact based outcome driven discussion. It would help if the industry didn’t keep shooting itself in the foot but one thing we can all agree on is that prohibition benefits no one and yet many will not be satisfied until it is banned. Media outlets seem to revel in this view but I guess sleaze sells.
David: Wow. Very well said. I couldn't agree more with you. 100%. I am a lontime big fan of the NYT, this story is a disgrace and really pisses me off bcs its total garbage. Sensational journalism beats the facts. Maybe its time to push back with the truth. Peace always BP3 ✌️☮️🕊
Bill Thomas
1y
As one of the drafters of PA’s sports betting law working for a Pa State House member who championed the efforts at that time…I missed the memo on this and got no cigars! Sheesh I feel jipped! 🙄 These types of articles just increases the public’s distrust in the institutions and ignores the very real and HARD work done by members and especially staff to do what is in the public’s best interest.
John Pappas
1y
Excellent thoughts here David. The NYT completely ignores how state-regulated sports betting is effective combatting fraud, money laundering and other illicit activity that was left completely unchecked before legalization and regulations. Also, offshore sports books, (including those the Times has cited and linked to in other stories) unabashedly offer promotions/free bets without any guardrails or consumer protections.
Soren Eustis
1y
You are all highly invested in the idea that this is bad reporting. It's not.
Matt Davey
1y
Well said David - definitely not NYT’s finest hour and unfortunately helps underwrite the narrative of mainstream media pushing their own agenda, sacrificing objective reporting for “click bait”. IMO, the regulatory transition the US has undertaken over the last 4 years has delivered a vastly safer environment for consumers along with significant and material benefits to state revenues.
I just realized this link didn't render for you. The story below is about the bill filed in New York to amend gambling bonuses regulation in reaction to these Times articles. (I broke the story, which I now see other outlets covering.) FYI: https://www.bonus.com/news/new-york-online-sports-betting/
David, I am a subscriber but I agree in this case - the article has an anachronistic and superior tone, and there are less than stellar characters in every industry as is very evident lately. But what has struck me, and that the article misses, is that, like the cannabis wave, state sports betting initiatives and legislation has created a tsunami of democracy at the state level. Of course there are lobbyists and money but what is notable is that sports betting showed, in every state that has considered it, sometimes accepting and sometimes rejecting it, that in each case the outcome was a decision made by the citizens of each state. And each state handled regulation and licensing in its own way. This was not a hijacked legislative process, and it is ongoing.
Senior Policy Advisor, Spectrum Gaming Group
1yDavid Briggs, we at Spectrum Gaming Group are appalled by the NYT story, which inaccurately and unfairly quoted Joe Weinert from our team. I have won 20 journalism awards in my career, and take a back seat to no one when it comes to promoting journalistic ethics, but that article manufactured an inaccurate quote at our expense, ignoring years of work we have done on sports betting, gaming tax policy and other issues. Here is an excerpt from Joe Weinert's response to Eric Lipton: I am, frankly, angry that you violated journalistic ethics by quoting me (and doing so inaccurately) ... I have been interviewed dozens of times in my 18+ years at Spectrum, and I am always exceedingly careful about what I say as an executive of the company. There is zero – zero – chance I would have given you the purported quote if you were actually interviewing me. Further, the quote you attributed to me is some sort of amalgamation that combines different thoughts and a word or whole thought pulled from air; ... What’s more, the quote does not represent the range of viewpoints I provided you – and certainly is not Spectrum’s position on this important issue.