Seeing the future
Futurism brought us the latest on the AI revolution this week, as it reported that “Gannett is using AI to pump brainrot gambling content into newspapers across the country”.
These articles, in turn, direct readers toward a gambling site for which Gannett is apparently an d marketing partner, thus helping generate additional revenue for the publisher.
The automated posts began appearing in February this year, according to Futurism, and appeared en masse across several local newspapers across multiple states.
This represents “an eyebrow-raising editorial move,” the piece says, “especially during an explosive rise in gambling addiction that Gannett itself has covered extensively.”
The lottery-related articles themselves are reportedly very formulaic, and are accompanied by a disclaimer that each “results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu,” a compiler of lottery data.
While advertising partnerships between publishers and gambling operators are nothing new, Futurism shines a light into what may be the future of the practice, as the quantity of AI-generated editorial content flooding the internet continues to increase.
The article questions, however, the right way to attribute this content, as several of the Gannett-published articles are linked directly to editorial staff despite them having limited, if any, impact on the content itself.
“To say that mixing automated journalism with SEO-targeted lottery articles that generate revenue when readers become gamblers themselves is pushing the limits of editorial ethics is putting it mildly, especially given the muddiness of the template attributions,” the piece argues.
In response to the criticism, Gannett has defended its practices, saying “By leveraging automation in our newsroom, we are able to expand coverage and enable our journalists to focus on more in-depth reporting.
“With human oversight at every step, this reporting meets our high standards for quality and accuracy to provide our audiences more valuable content which they’ve always associated with Gannett and the USA Today Network.”
While the implementation of AI is likely to improve productivity across a broad range of organisations, this article shines a light on just one of its many ethical implications for the future of journalism.
Racing vs. The World
Elsewhere, The Guardian reported that horse racing leaders in the UK have been breaking ranks this week “to push for higher taxes on online casinos”.
The always interesting Rob Davies reports that “a schism has opened up at the heart of the £11.5bn-a-year gambling industry, after senior figures in horse racing broke ranks and signalled they would no longer object to tougher taxes and regulation of online casinos.”
As the government assesses possible tax structure simplifications (read: hikes) for the gambling sector, it seems the plans have created a little competition among gambling’s different verticals.This “follows nearly six years in which racing has lined up alongside online casinos to lobby against tougher gambling regulation and taxes,” Davies reports, under the leadership of trade body the Betting and Gaming Council.
During a meeting convened by thinktank the Social Market Foundation, racing industry figures reportedly warned that raising taxes on the sector from its current 15% rate, to 21% to match the remote gaming duty levied on online consequences, would have severe consequences for the sport.
“Any harmonisation of tax between online casino and horse-race betting would have the consequence, however unintended, of Britain being a world leader in online casino and a world pauper in the global sport of horse racing,” Arena Racing Company CEO Martin Cruddace bluntly suggested.
This attitude, the article suggests, creates the unprecedented situation of the racing sector now turning its back on the rest of the gambling industry to lobby for its own benefit, at the expense of other verticals.
The horse racing industry’s battle for survival is nothing new, of course, but this new discourse may suggest cracks beginning to form at the heart of the overall gambling sector.
It now seems that as racing continues to battle to secure favourable conditions, no part of the market will be immune from its attention.
Back to school
Finally, Sports Illustrated revealed that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is reportedly considering removing its prohibition on gambling on professional sports.
At present, team athletes, coaches and staff are prohibited from wagering on professional sports that are also sponsored by the NCAA.
However, in a video conference in April, the NCAA’s Division 1 Council’s board reportedly voted 21-1 in favour of directing the council “to adopt legislation to deregulate the prohibition on wagering on professional sports.”
The article suggests the board also “directed the NCAA staff to develop concepts for the appropriate committees to consider regarding a safe harbour, limited immunity or reduced penalties for student-athletes who engage in sports wagering but seek help for problem gambling.”
Despite the potential changes, sources said existing prohibitions against gambling on college sports would remain in place.
An approval of the new rules could signal a refocusing of the NCAA’s efforts on betting activity “that more directly threatens the college athletics product,” the article says.
The organisation’s main focus remains on securing the integrity of collegiate sports and combatting any kind of match-fixing or prohibited betting activity.
If introduced, the new rules could indicate something of a sea change when it comes to college sports’ relationship to the question of sports betting.
