_{Gambling industry under scrutiny from journalists (Image: Dmytro Zinkevych/Alamy)}

There was a time when you couldn’t get a journalist to confirm black was black and white was white. That would have to come from a reliable source such as an expert on colour and even then, it might have a counter argument from another expert on colour just to balance the argument.

When it comes to casinos, gambling and the gambling industry, it is fair to say that the enormous economic contributor does not get a fair hearing.

If we take the National Lottery, the darling of the gambling industry, (yes, it is gambling) we see and hear a much gentler tone with the press full of stories of Mr Thomas from Merthyr Tydfil taking his family on a Disney holiday along with the new car and a cruise up the Orinoco. 

Incredible what one can do with a rollover. Not so when someone wins big on the slots.

Might of Hulk Hogan not Wielded on Lottery

Every week we see someone or other making the news with their lucky win/gamble. Switch on the television and apart from those unbearable ads for insurance and celebrity dancers or bakers being fingered for misdeeds you might spot ads for the National Lottery or Postcode Lottery.

Journalists working for some newspapers appear to miss or ignore the gambling habit of a large percentage of the UK population when it comes to demands to hit the gambling industry harder than it is already being hit (full Hulk Hogan).

National Lottery Launches ‘Win on Repeat’

When it comes to adverts the National Lottery excels. “Win On Repeat. That’s the key message of a brand-new advertising campaign from The National Lottery focussed on Set for Life.

The video advert states: “Inspired by the game’s incredible top prize of £10,000 every month for 30 years, the fast-paced campaign centres around a series of short videos. 

"From the slopes of a ski resort to a skate park’s ramps and the dance floor of a club, they’re a reminder of how a Set for Life win can be enjoyed again and again and again.

“Win On Repeat sounds as good as it looks thanks to a track created exclusively for the campaign by multi-award-winning producer and musician Fraser T Smith. He’s previously worked with Adele, Stormzy, Gorillaz, Dave and Britney Spears (among others).

“You’ll be seeing the new Win on Repeat campaign everywhere from social media, TV and streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime to billboards in cities including London, Liverpool and Newcastle.”

Gambling Advertising Debate a Hot Potato

There is ongoing debate within governments around the world on the issue of gambling adverts. Any self-respecting business owner knows that the key to success is marketing. 

Without the ability to advertise those businesses would struggle to generate the vast amounts of money, which they contribute to the economy each year and use to pay the wages of staff, rental or purchase of buildings, taxes to HMRC etc.

Back to the point in question about impartial journalism. An article in the Guardian calls grow for total ban on gambling ads as Australia’s annual losses surge to $32bn Sep 14, 2024.

The Guardian also provides a video with presenter Matilda Boseley in our opinion, using a tone more suited for the anti-gambling lobby than to an audience yet to make up their minds.

In good old fashioned journalistic style, we assessed the report for bias looking at the content, tone, sources, and the potential influences behind it.

Tone and Language Critical of Gambling Industry

The language used throughout the report seems critical of the gambling industry's arguments against the proposed advertising bans. Phrases like "tobacco industry made some eerily similar arguments" and "dire outcomes that the wagering industry predicted" indicate a sceptical stance towards the claims made by gambling advocates.

The use of rhetorical questions and speculative scenarios ("imagine what you could buy instead") suggests a persuasive intent aimed at framing the discourse in a particular light. You have to watch the video to decide if the presenter’s tone and gesticulations are impartial.

The report lays out the arguments in favour of banning gambling ads, such as the financial benefits to community sports and the concerns about problem gambling. 

However, it does not equally present the arguments made by the gambling industry (e.g., potential financial losses for sports leagues and media organisations) without rebuttal or analysis.

While it references the alleged potential harm to community sports and media outlets, it does so by framing those concerns as counterpoints to be criticised rather than presenting them neutrally.

Selective Selection of Sources

The report references data and studies, like the $120 million loss claim made by the gambling industry regarding the AFL and compares it to government support for community sports. However, it does not provide extensive details on the methodologies or credibility of the sources cited, potentially undermining the objectivity of the claims.

The mention of Spain as a success story without discussing any of the complexities or nuances involved minimises the possibility of counterarguments and potentially biases the reader towards viewing a total ban favourably.

For Impartiality see Expertise and Authority

The report cites insights from experts who are critical of half-measures in gambling regulations and discusses the disproportionate impact of problem gamblers on overall revenues. However, it may appear biased if it only highlights perspectives that align with its stance while neglecting opposing expert opinions.

The framing of the debate as a binary choice (ban vs. support for industries) could reflect a bias in presentation. 

The phrasing suggests that the only outcomes are negative for sports and media if advertising is banned, while ignoring other potential avenues of adaptation or alternative sources of funding for those industries.

Overall, the report seems to exhibit biases by adopting a critical tone towards the gambling industry and proponents of gambling advertising while favouring the perspective of those advocating for restrictions. It does not provide balanced representation of all views or elaborate on potential benefits and drawbacks of proposed measures. 

To enhance objectivity, a more balanced approach that includes a broader range of perspectives and a critical examination of all claims would be advisable. Perhaps the same kind of hatchet job on the National Lottery will be next for the newspaper.