As legalized betting on sporting events continues to soar in popularity in jurisdictions around the world, critics are increasingly voicing opposition to the proliferation of ads that make winning look like all but a sure thing.
Led by industry giants such as DraftKings and FanDuel, consumers are experiencing a tsunami of advertising that critics say takes advantage of the gullible and makes a mockery of the math behind all the oddsmaking. Social scientists and addiction and mental-health specialists take an even harsher stance. They report substantial increases in calls to compulsive-gambling help lines, which might be linked to increased enticement, but could also be the result of a dramatic increase in betting overall.
Sports leagues have begun forming alliances to limit betting ads, and controversies about the proliferation of advertising aren’t hard to find on the Internet. In Massachusetts, lawmakers are expressing concern over the flood of pitches in the market, some by sports icons David Ortiz and Rob Gronkowski. Some of the journalism on the subject has been pretty ominous.
Now comes The Guardian, a respected source for international news that continues to study widespread legalized-sports betting’s impact on society, the latest media outlet to say enough is more than enough. As of June 15, the multiplatform news operation stopped accepting gambling advertising on all its platforms.
“Guardian journalists have reported on the devastating impact of the gambling industry globally, exposing how problem gambling often leads to financial penury, mental-health issues, and deep personal distress,” the organization’s Chief Executive Anna Bateson writes in a letter to readers under the title, “All bets are off.”
She allows that millions of Guardian readers love their sports “and may occasionally choose to engage in gambling as part of their sporting experience,” and the news organization supports the exercise of their “personal freedom,” but insists that the proliferation of sports-gaming ads has gotten way out of hand.
“Our concern lies with the pervasive nature of certain advertisements that trap a portion of sports fans in an addictive cycle,” she writes. “By taking a stand against gambling advertising, we believe we can offer a safe place for sports fans all over the world to enjoy world-class sports journalism in an environment free from advertising that pushes betting, wagering, or online casinos.”
She compared it to a similar decision The Guardian made to no longer take advertising from the oil and gas industry. In short, the independently owned news outfit is willing to say thanks, but no thanks, to profiting from advertising they consider misleading to those susceptible to such seductive come-ons that often appear to defy math, oddsmaking, and just plain good sense.
“We are able to make these types of decisions due to our independent ownership structure, which means we are free to make decisions that reflect our values and those of our readers, balancing profit with purpose,” Bateson writes.
If that sentence makes your skeptical mind feel like someone is preparing to set a hook and ask for a donation to the common cause of good journalism, you’re right. Despite its lofty advertising standards, The Guardian isn’t opposed to turning a buck to keep the lights on and the presses running.
Those who read to the end of Bateson’s heartfelt letter to readers will note that, for just a couple of bucks a month, you can support The Guardian’s conscientious advertising philosophy as well as its news product.
Color me slightly confused and it wouldn’t be the first time, but I think there might be a lesson in here somewhere.
In the end, it can pay to advertise even when the advertisement is about not accepting advertising.
