[ad_1]
I had traveled to Malta for business. I added a few days to my itinerary so that I might sneak over to Sicily to tour for a bit. I would then fly back to Malta, spend the night, and catch my morning flight back to the U.S.
When I arrived back in Malta from my time in Sicily, I checked into a hotel and then headed out walking in the capital city of Valletta, looking for a place to have dinner. My passage was interrupted by a very large crowd, and it soon became clear it was a demonstration. The demonstration was for Daphne.
Daphne was Daphne Caruana Galizia, a Maltese journalist. She was an extraordinarily competent reporter with little fear and apparently great sources, and she worked tirelessly to weed out corruption in Malta. She also collected enemies by the bushel basket, so much so that many aspects of her daily life had to change for her protection. She was constantly sued, hassled, criticized, followed, intimidated — and even arrested.
On Oct. 16, 2017, Daphne was driving away from her home. A huge explosion followed. One of her sons was among the first on the scene to discover parts of his mother’s body spread about a field.
A number of people have been arrested in Malta for involvement in the murder of Daphne. The most noteworthy is Yorgen Fenech, the largest casino owner on the island. The Armed Forces of Malta intercepted his yacht on Nov. 20, 2019, as it was apparently heading to Italy, shortly after a key witness in the case had been granted immunity. Fenech was taken into custody and remains in prison to this day, awaiting trial.
As I stood in Valetta in the midst of the demonstration, a man began speaking. I was told it was Daphne’s son. I could not understand what he said, for he was speaking in Maltese — but the power of the moment brought me to tears.
Sign Up For The Sports Handle Newsletter!
Risks and rewards in reporting
Since her death, Daphne has been honored with numerous awards and commendations for her courage and reporting, and a group of reporters even collaborated to produce a book in her honor. Moreover, the European Parliament has developed a most prestigious and financially rewarding prize to be awarded annually on World Press Day — all in her name and honor. It is a constant reminder of the importance of a reporter’s work, often with few rewards and at great risk.
I also took note of an interesting series of articles in The Royal Gazette, the largest newspaper in the country of Bermuda. These were published on Oct. 18, 2017 (two days after Daphne’s murder). The articles were about certain events in Bermuda’s gaming space. If one looks at these articles, it is noteworthy that they have no bylines. It was explained that the reporters were worried about including their names. They felt, however, that there were important stories for the people of Bermuda to know. These are brave and important people who do this work.
In California, meanwhile, a series of newspaper stories revealed that one of the state’s most successful gaming consultants was receiving confidential information from the live-in boyfriend of the Gambling Commission’s executive director. She later resigned from her post, and the consultant agreed to pay a material fine and accepted a lifetime ban from the gaming industry in California. Also, in the settlement with the state, the consultant admitted he had received confidential information from that live-in boyfriend. The reports noted that the three individuals involved had previously worked together in the California Department of Justice.
Now, let’s drift over to Nevada and have the powers that be there explain how a few reporters from out of town were able to give Steve Wynn a pretty good reason to exit the industry, while the Nevada Gaming Control Board and its 400-plus employees seem to have missed his transgressions — for many years. These reporters and their newspaper knew they would be subjected to all kinds of questions, insults, and accusations, and they understood that Mr. Wynn was probably ready to use his enormous resources to sue them into oblivion if presented with the opportunity.
These reporters also suggested that there were a number of Wynn executives who ignored complaints by fellow Wynn employees about being sexually assaulted and abused. One notes that some of these executives no longer work in regulated casino markets that would demand they be licensed. Again, this was brought up by a few reporters from out of state.
In March 2021, the book Caesars Palace Coup by journalists Max Frumes and Sujeet Indap was published. This impressive tome is a testament that gaming regulators across the country probably had little understanding of the complex financial machinations taking place within the Caesars Palace restructuring and bankruptcy — or the character of one or more of the principals.
And for many of us, The New York Times was the paper that brought to our attention that MGM Resorts International was suing the victims of one of the largest mass shootings in U.S. history. I cannot imagine what it is like to have a loved one murdered and then discover a company planned to sue me in a maneuver of cost containment. This was all completely legal, and the press enabled the public to know of this action.
The point of this is to suggest that a free press is one of the most important assets that the gaming industry has. It allows the public to know and understand important details about the industry. It should be respected. Moreover, gaming is a regulated industry, and if one studies regulated industries, one will find that an engaged press is a tool to guard against regulatory capture. And anyone who does not believe that regulatory capture is an issue in U.S. gaming must put away the edibles, for they have over-consumed and are hallucinating.
‘A Risky Wager’ — and its reception
On Nov. 20, 2022, The New York Times ran four articles addressing the newly developing betting and gaming scene in the United States. The project was undertaken by a team of nearly a dozen reporters and consumed just short of a year’s time. Four of the reporters had won or shared in receiving Pulitzer Prizes. Let me repeat that — for almost a year, one of the largest papers in the United States assembled a large team of professionals, four of whom had either won or shared in a Pulitzer Prize, to work on a series of stories on gaming.
- One article suggested that Dave Portnoy of Barstool Sports seemed a rather curious choice to be one of the important branding tools for a casino company, and additional information was provided addressing what was described as his checkered background.
- A second article suggested that politicians seemed to be in a feeding frenzy in an effort to monetize the spread of sports betting, and that those officials may not always be looking out for the public’s best interests.
- Another article suggested that there was possibly some downside to turning our colleges into fertile fields to market betting products.
- A last article suggested that the states appeared unprepared for the challenge of introducing betting products at the rapid pace at which the U.S. was trending.
Clearly these were revolutionary concepts and indicative of a biased press putting out a hit piece on a victimized gaming industry. Or maybe not.
The American Gaming Association was troubled by what it called “mischaracterizations” and seemed to offer a confusing suggestion about the federal government’s role in regulating gaming. Portnoy was likewise upset; when he is upset, he is fairly noisy about it. Also, people with prestigious-sounding titles threw shade on the motivations of the project by the Times, though people with prestigious titles can neglect to mention they are still serving in paid positions within the industry.
I suspect that what would make those who hate the Times happy would be the Sheldon Adelson solution, in which a multi-billionaire casino operator bought the largest newspaper in Nevada. This would probably slow down the reporting about the tens of millions of dollars Mr. Adelson’s companies had paid to resolve anti-money laundering, bribery, and foreign corrupt practices issues — including one payment of $47 million alone, which was reported at the time by The New York Times.
What is somewhat funny about Mr. Adelson buying Nevada’s largest newspaper was that, apparently, an effort was made to keep the identity of the buyer secret. This attempt was caught by … wait for it … a group of reporters.
It might be time for a reality check for the gaming industry. I doubt that The New York Times would have dedicated the human resources, time, and energy to purposely disparage the gaming industry. Moreover, it seems that most complaints about the articles come from people who would benefit from the status quo.
Asymmetric interactions and lasting impact
It is an interesting exercise to read the comments section following each article. Few seemed to suggest it was bad reporting or a hit job, except those following the Portnoy piece, with the understanding that many of the comments that were sent in about the Portnoy article could not be published because they violated the newspaper’s publishing standards. It seems the Stoolies may have mobilized.
I am not suggesting that the articles were perfect. But many of the points addressed have continued to be the focus of a great deal of attention by regulators, the industry, the press, and the public — almost daily.
The gaming industry must understand that it is often involved in asymmetric interactions. The New York Times has over 9 million subscribers, and this includes an impressive array of leaders in government, industry, and the public. And while it might provide a bit of relief for someone in the gaming space to vent over social media and get two or three hundred likes, the reality is that this plays to a very small and self-contained audience.
I would think that the public’s perception of what is happening in the gaming space also supports the stories in the Times. People generally dislike the constant barrage of advertising in new betting markets, much of it being broadcast in the presence of children. Many people are uncomfortable with gaming, and to find that these companies are actively engaged within our colleges is a tough pill for them to swallow. And I cannot believe that many in the industry want Portnoy to be the hill they die on. It is easy to believe and agree with stories about an industry that has become such an annoyance in their daily lives.
I started working in gaming in 1971. Nevada was the only state that had gaming. As the industry expanded, it expanded relatively slowly, and people could adjust. Now the industry moves at lightning speed, and it enters people’s homes, radios, cars, and social media — and it enters with a bang — 24/7. This may be cool from the side of an operator, but with regard to the public … it all may seem like too much too soon.
Over a long career, I have noticed that the gaming industry has often made the press an enemy. That may have felt fulfilling in the short run, but it has seldom worked out well for the industry in the long.
We must also quit pushing the fantasy that our regulatory agencies are well-oiled machines. Because of the rapid expansion of the industry, there are a lot of people who call themselves regulators who had other titles just a short time ago. Moreover, these bureaucracies are often underfunded and undertrained, and their effectiveness is hampered by political meddling, political self-dealing, and other nonsense.
Maybe, just maybe, the best use of our time is not playing the victim and tilting at windmills. It may be time to lighten up on the testosterone patches, take a breath, and start working to solve a whole array of challenges that stand before us all. What we have now is a model that has sustainability issues. We clearly need to improve what is currently being offered to the public. Most of all, we need a better learning model to get us there, and that often involves listening — even to reporters.
[ad_2]
Source link