PBS delivered the kind of gambling discussion Americans deserve: knowledgeable and nuanced.
Typically, when mainstream media turns its attention to gambling, the industry has learned from experience to expect a one-sided take that demonizes the entire ecosystem.
Given the expected bias, it was a pleasant surprise to find that PBS’ latest episode of “Breaking the Deadlock”, titled “Gambling With Your Life,” offers viewers an uncommonly nuanced take on the increasingly contentious topic.
Hosted by author and UC Davis law professor Aaron Tang, the one-hour special gathered an impressively diverse panel to discuss the ethical and political dilemmas of online betting, based on fictionalized, reality-based scenarios.
At the center of this episode’s debate is Jeremy, a young man from the fictional state of “Middlevania” who starts wagering on “FanFuel.” As the story progresses, Jeremy’s betting activity becomes increasingly problematic as he descends into gambling addiction.
Meanwhile, Tang assigns each panelist a role in the scenario: mother, father, sports celebrity, state senator, governor, media, podcaster, AI evangelist, etc. Throughout, Tang has the panelists weigh in on how they’d address Jeremy’s addiction and the legalization of gambling in Middlevania more generally.
Those spirited back-and-forths are where the real value of “Gambling With Your Life” lives.
One memorable exchange between West Virginia delegate Shawn Fluharty (who plays Middlevania Governor) and US Senator from Connecticut Richard Blumenthal (Middlevania Senator) probed the tension between state and federal governance over the gambling industry.
It went like this:
Fluharty:
Senator, while you’ve been a great advisor to me through the years, you keep your federal hands off my state legislation.”
Blumenthal:
With all due respect, Governor: No.”
Tug of War Between Industry and Regulators on Display
The reason this debate is so valuable stands on the cast that Breaking the Deadlock assembled.
Of the 10-person panel, about half expressed support for regulated gambling. The remainder took a more skeptical approach.
Gambling With Your Life’s full cast list:
- Tiki Barber: former NFL player
- Richard Blumenthal: US senator, Connecticut
- Jonathan D. Cohen: American Institute for Boys and Men’s gambling policy lead
- Ed Elson: analyst, writer, and podcaster
- Shawn Fluharty: WV delegate and National Council of Legislators from Gaming States president
- Alan Levy: AI business leader
- Anita Marks: ESPN gambling analyst
- Ben McDonald: former MLB player
- Stephanie Ruhle: MS NOW host
- Daniel Wallach: gaming lawyer
Another spicy exchange between Blumenthal and AI evangelist Alan Levy helped highlight the tension between those looking to disrupt the online gambling industry and those trying to regulate it.
Levy, arguing that the Safer Bet Act (legislation co-sponsored by Blumenthal that would impose strict standards on the industry) would never pass in this theoretical jurisdiction, said:
The Safer Bet Act is never going to be able to pass because it is based in a world of naivety. And here in Middlevania, we live in the real world. So in the real world, things like banning AI algorithms is impossible. How are you going to ban me from using algorithms at home? I think that the thing that you are demonizing is information. Information can never be banned.”
In response, Blumenthal quipped:
“We’re not banning algorithms. We’re banning certain use of algorithms to exploit people like Jeremy.”
But my favourite quote of the whole episode might have come from AIBM’s Jonathan Cohen.
“Gambling has, of course, been a part of human history forever, but gambling as much money as you want on Malaysian women’s doubles badminton on your phone in the middle of the night has never been a part of our never-ending dance with the forces of chance.”
More from Cohen: Americans Wary of Insider Trading on Prediction Markets
Public Deserves Nuanced Gambling Discussions
Overall, reaction to the episode has been largely positive. At least so far. That said, I will admit to being confused by the pushback I have seen.
On InGame, fellow gambling journalist Eric Raskin, while generally complimentary, took issue with the show’s central premise.
Initially, Raskin acknowledged Jeremy’s storyline as an “entirely realistic and all-too-common scenario.” But he then lamented that it wasn’t countered by the tale of healthy habits, calling it a “significant shortcoming.”
He also had a problem with Tang’s introduction of an AI chatbot girlfriend for Jeremy, which pushed him further into problematic territory. Raskin argued that this had “no connection” to gambling.
On the first point, while more balance would have been welcome, intersectionality is key when it comes to public policy. If you want to protect those most at risk, you build your policy to create guardrails for the Jeremys. Not for the player who bets $20 every week.
As for the second, I would ask: are we talking about THE SAME gambling industry?
It’s true that many operators and gambling proponents would be aghast at the idea of weaponizing chatbots for ill will — in fact, probably the majority, at least within the regulated industry. But I would bet good money that there are “disruptors” salivating at the thought, if not already pursuing that kind of tech. And I hate wasting money.
However, Raskin and I agree that “Breaking the Deadlock” is the kind of conversation the industry and the public deserve to hear and see more of, even if it wasn’t perfect. These days, what is?
To quote Steve Ruddock in today’s newsletter, “the episode is definitely worth a watch.”
The post PBS Roundtable Confronts Online Sports Gambling with Uncommon Nuance appeared first on Gambling Insider.
