According to a NiemanLab article, some observers question whether reporters are authorised to gambling on sports.
According to Sarah Scire, many organisations have specific procedures that handle gambling. Some, however, have not.
Consider Gannett. Scire claims that the vast media company leaves the decision to gamble on sports they cover up to the individual employee. It appears to be an honour system.
It’s different at the top of the journalistic food chain: The New York Times and The Athletic prohibit reporters covering leagues and clubs from betting while on the job. The Athletic, on the other hand, has one exception:
“Those employees who regularly work as part of our Betting vertical desk and need to understand the ins and outs of sports wagering in order to remain experts in the field are permitted to wager on sports.” To avoid any conflict of interest, those personnel or freelance writers must not write or record audio about firms with which they may have a relationship outside of The Athletic.”
The Boston Globe similarly prohibits reporters from betting on sports they cover.
ESPN, too, has a clear policy, according to NiemanLab.
“Do not use, disclose, or provide access to non-public information that you have been exposed to as part of your job (“Confidential Information”), for any betting-related purposes, including influencing others to place bets or disclosing such information to any sportsbook operator.”
ESPN clarifies that “this includes but is not limited to: (a) a player’s injury status or participation in a game or event; or (b) any other information about officials, players, coaches or management.”
That sounds more like it.
Despite his genius, Damon Runyon was a compulsive gambler, according to his biographers. Furthermore, he promoted prizefights and most likely had conflicts of interest behind the scenes.
But that was a century before our current journalism schools began to codify ethics for aspiring journalists.
A publisher has no means of knowing if a journalist is gambling, or if they are taking recreational drugs.
Journalists who publish favourable articles about firms in which they own stock would be in big trouble. What makes sports any different?
However, this begs the question of how much influence publishers and editors have over their employees in general.
Hearst has introduced a new policy that forbids sharing or like problematic content on social media. It has also encouraged employees to report any sightings.
In theory, this is easier because it is public. It must have been influenced by the public discourse on the Israel-Hamas conflict.
That would be a firing offence for most credible publications. You can place a wager on it.
