What do you think of me, the ProPublica director in charge of reporting standards, if you staked your bet on the football game I’m currently listening to on the television? Probability is that I’m using up resources that many others do, and that my bag will be less expensive in a few months.
What do you think of me if I were to receive a nice amount based on the outcome of a media occurrence that ProPublica covered? You’d definitely assume that’s dubious because a journalist’s work is not to report the news and not profit from it.
You may rest assured that I’m an morally compromised editor if you think that. No employee should bet on the output of information events on the prediction markets, regardless of whether or not they are involved in the protection of said event, according to a new update to ProPublica’s code of ethics.
You might be wondering why we changed our code of ethics to specifically focus on prediction industry because ProPublica has always forbidden people from profiting from inside information. There haven’t been any cases where this has occurred on our team, but it has become more and more difficult to deny the impact and scope of prediction markets beyond activities. In fact, there are numerous agreements between forecast industry and media companies, including Polymarket with Dow Jones, Kalshi with CNN, Fox News with The Associated Press, and Kalshi with CNN.
However, these businesses have also been a source of concern. Look to the event of a U.S. man who was allegedly betting on the quest to resignation Nicolás Maduro from electricity in Venezuela. According to the Department of Justice, he was accused of using classified government information for personal gain, stealing nonpublic state data, bribing with money with wires, and engaging in illegal financial activity. He entered a not-guilty plea. Or to the political applicants who were accused of trying to influence their own races. ( All three received five-year suspensions from the platform and fines from Kalshi, which ranged from about$ 540 to about$ 230. ) Or even the journalist who described receiving threats from players attempting to change his report on an Israeli missile effect. ( He didn’t. )
In a world where everyone can have a financial interest in almost anything, it felt necessary for us to create professional restrictions. Is a user be certain we are covering a story without partiality if one of our employees has cash riding on an results? that is what we thought.
We are aware that your confidence should be respected and kept. We’ve often had higher expectations of ourselves. Our editors are specifically instructed to “avoid any actions that may make a fair reader doubt their ability to report quite or with impartiality on the subjects of their insurance.” We are aware that even the presence of our actions serving no common interest is troubling.
One of our worries was that readers may assume journalists were doing the same when we began to see instances of people making income off the goal of news events. Yet speculating on news developments, such as the French presidential election of the upcoming year, isn’t a good idea for a journalist. A user may be wondering if someone on our employees is betting on something that is more in line with their field of expertise or with that person’s skill set.
However, we also wanted to make sure not to shut down activities that don’t create a significant philosophical risk. Even though some of our team allegiances might make readers think we’re gluttons for punishment, a group of investigative journalists who splash a few dollars into an office sports pool might not have the public believe we’re capable of being good. Additionally, spending a little money on a game isn’t a major source of concern. So we made sure to state that “betting on sporting events ( like the Super Bowl or the Kentucky Derby ) and participating in small-stakes, friendly competitions ( like office pools on the Oscars ) are permitted when legal and when employees are not involved in covering those events.”
I don’t wager on sporting activities because I’d rather spend my money on cheap tickets and facility novelty in these situations, even though our code of ethics permits that.
Other sources are also addressing this problem. Editors are not permitted to place wagers on developments of information events, or anything else we may handle, or on things NPR controls, including who may appear on approaching Tiny Desk Concerts, according to NPR’s recent guidance. Additionally, the standards editor of the New York Times stated in a letter to staff that “betting on the result of information events on the prediction markets is prohibited and contrary to our principles.”
Beyond just reporting on media, this has also attracted national and state attention. States employees are prohibited from using inside info to bet on prediction industry in places like Maryland and New York. Additionally, a number of U.S. House of Representatives lawmakers have called for prohibiting the use of betting on the platforms by members of the room and their staff.
Our code of ethics is not unchanging, and we may explore this subject in the future to further strengthen our rules. Or we might take on a topic that isn’t even on our sensor right now. However, we always act with the user in mind so that you can be sure that only those who are just held to your standards receive the truth. You may wager on it. Basically, perhaps don’t do that.
The article Why We Changed Our Code of Ethics to Address Prediction Markets initially appeared on ProPublica.
