Friday, September 4, 2009

I'll Take the Phillies to Win for $1,000.

A PENN STATE UNIVERSITY study found that forty percent of the 285 sports reporters they interviewed gambled on sports. Five percent gambled on sports they covered.

Is there anything wrong with sports reporters gambling on sports? Does that sacrifice their credibility? Does that make you question the information they put in their stories?

More than $380 billion gets wagered on illegal sports betting every year, so it's not like these sports reporters are the only ones placing bets.

Should they be held to different standards?

9 comments:

Colin McWilliams T R class 11-12;20 said...

I do not think that there is anything wrong with sports reporters gambling on sports. Many people do it and Journalists are people too, so why should they be criticized for something the general public does? Now by sports journalists being involved in gambling may cause them to show some bias toward what they are writing, but then again just about every single journalist puts their own spin on their stories anyway so is this really any different? I do not think so but that is just me. On a lighter note, journalists reporting on sports, it may give them a better shot at winning what they gamble on. Better odds at winning is something everyone wishes they have.

Don Hoegg said...

There's a pretty fine line between having a bias and having a conflict of interest, but I don't think this crosses it, especially since only 5% bet on what they write about it

Joseph Schaefer said...

Journalists should be allowed to bet on sports they cover as long as their articles don't uncover a strong bias do to their betting. Betting shouldn't ruin their credibility because they have all the right to gamble on any sport, game, player, etc. While sports reporters should be allowed to gamble on any game they want without losing credibility, it deffinately could cause readers to question the information they put in their stories. Personally, I would rather have my credibility than a little extra cash in the pocket...

-Joseph Schaefer
Journalism and Society 1111

Josh Verlin said...

I think sports journalists should be allowed to bet on sports. The reporters' betting would not in any way influence the outcome of the game, only their reporting. Many viewers are able to discern obvious bias in sports reporters (i.e., Lou Holtz picking Notre Dame to go to the national title game), so who cares if they want to also put their money where their mouth is? Peter King of Sports Illustrated picked the Patriots to win the Super Bowl, so I'd be more surprised if he DIDN'T want to put some money down on who he thinks will win.

Geo said...

So, was it wrong for Pete Rose to bet on baseball?

- George
(the teacher who'll bet you $50 he knows what your answer will be)

Josh Verlin said...

As long as he was betting only for his team to win--of course not. How could him betting on himself to win negatively impact his play? He's only going to try harder, run faster, be a better teammate and do what he can to help his team win. One could argue that it would put more pressure on him, but I don't think that Charlie Hustle was the kind of guy to feel pressure to begin with. The fact that he is ineligible for the Hall of Fame while Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire are is an outrage.

-Josh
(The student who owes you $50, and who knows that McGwire will never see the Hall)

William Shields said...

Regarding Pete Rose betting on baseball: He did not bet on the Reds every single game they played. So some days he did not believe they (The Reds) would win. This in turn would tell Vegas or his other people in the know something they wouldn't know. A true player's belief on whether he could or couldn't win the game for his team. And allowing Vegas to slant the odds of house even more so and hurting the betting public.

So, players should never be able to place any bet on any sport they are a part of. Period. It affects the outcome of the game played and could affect it's integrity especially if he laid money on the runline and had picked his team to win by a certain amount of runs.

Regarding Journalists, it comes down to scruples. I personally do not have any ethics nor scruples when it comes to money. I'll write credible journalist AP articles all day, if it sells. I'll write fiction pieces and pass them off as Op-Eds if it sells too. I'll write a novel, if it sells. (In fact, I'd prefer to sell it before I even wrote it.) And I'd even write a bunch of yellow-satirical journalistic lies for The Onion, if it pays. If, one was a betting man, or even if I was, armed with team information and writing as a sports journalist, and I knew a certain player was hurt and wasn't playing, would I place a bet on a team before I ran my story? Absolutely. Money is money. Any advantage against the house is a good one. And if the story on the injury or line-up change, or starter being benched is credible and honest, then I do not lie to my fans, editors, or myself. And I may get rewarded betting wise for doing credible research on the story. Jour 1111 11pm -1220 TR

KearnDaddy said...

There's definitely something wrong with plain ol' sports betting. PERIOD! Then throw in the fact that journalists themselves are taking place in the act.

It's the same thing that made Tim Donaghy lose his job and serve time.

Or even more intense than that, made a beloved Phillie then Reds manager Pete Rose lose out on the game he loved forever due to his inability to walk away from this addiction which saw him bet constantly for and against his own Reds ballclub. Books have been written by the man himself on the subject matter, despite vehemently denying so in various ways, Rose finally coming clean, still will never get to Cooperstown just for his lying moreso than the action itself, which is a damn shame. As a Phillies fan it's disheartening and very disappointing and just shows what kind of man Bud Selig truly is. (But that's a whole nother story. Ex. 2002 All-Star Game, The Steroid Era, etc.)
But for that fans have even forgiven Bud, but not Charlie Hustle.

When the all-time hits leader can't get his plaque to shine under Cooperstown's bright lights, we go ahead and praise the game's REAL cheaters,(take a look @ the Mitchell Report.)

While Rose will probably never be enshrined in the Hall, we Philly fans can always hold him accountable for our 1980 World Series title, for without Pete, the Tugger never gets the chance to tell New York to take the World Title and stick it! Let's GO Phillies!!

Andrew Kearney

Wafai Dias said...

There is something wrong with sports reporters gambling on sports, but then again i think its inevitable for them because sports is their life. It does sacrfice their credibilty because now after reading a paper I'm going to ask myself "Did this reporter when or loose the bet?"