Television’s own “cash for comment” scandal appears to have been nipped in the bud, and ministers should take a bow. Their move to axe broadcasting of live odds during sporting matches is so obviously in the community’s best interests that Big Sport itself saw it coming and welcomed it.
Its most insidious aspect is the apparently seamless chat about the latest odds that is woven into commentary.
If that’s part of the deal with betting sponsors, then it’s difficult to see how it’s markedly different from radio’s “cash for comment” scandal 12 years ago.
Alan Jones and John Laws were paid to give favourable comment to sponsors without disclosing the arrangement to listeners.
Sports commentators may be under no obligation to give “favourable” comment to gambling sponsors, but any mention of odds is clearly favourable to the sponsors’ interests.
Is it always crystal clear to all viewers that these are paid spots? Hardly.
Especially when the viewers are high schoolers and primary schoolers.
Gambling is also normalised for those kids every time they see odds flash up on scoreboards as they watch their favourite footy teams, and hear ground announcers spruik them.
“There’s a very insidious culture starting to develop that’s targeting the vulnerable and the young,” said Communications Minister Stephen Conroy.
This problem hasn’t been around for long.
The COAG ministers acted quickly, and the sports should be thankful because this helps protect their integrity.
There’s a place for responsible gambling, but Australians hardly need any encouragement to bet.
The average adult lost $1290 last year.
That already makes us the world’s biggest losers.
This one’s a win.
Sportz
Guest
I am a punter. I like having a bet. And even I find it absolutely disgusting. And apart from that, it's just plain annoying. So I don't know what non-punters are thinking! If I want to know the odds for something, I can look it up myself. And the same for other punters.
jus de couchon
Guest
As a semi reformed gambler Id say its gross to pretend that promotion of sports betting isnt going to cause more misery with the most vulnerable.
sheek
Guest
Doug, I was gobsmacked the other night when rugby league commentator Peter Sterling cut to some bloke from sportsbet to get the latest odds on the state of origin. Okay, I had been witnessing this sort of thing most of this season & most of last, but the brazenness of it blew me away. The whole incident was basically saying that the sports bet companies were now part of the 'inner sanctum'. I'm not a smoker myself, but I'm blown away by the naked hypocrisy that is directed towards the tobacco companies. Governments will pick on smoking, but aren't game to tackle the other two social ills of drinking & gambling. Mind you, I like my beer & red wine, & the occasional flutter on the nags. A smoker does most harm to themselves, to their own body. Okay, passive smoking is a problem, but can be controlled by making smokers have their cigs in a separate, well-ventilated area, which many social venues provide. A drinker sometimes does harm to himself, but more often to others, either by getting aggressive, or drink driving. People die from being the victims of alcohol rage. A gambler will spend his last dollar before paying the necessary bills, or providing food for the family, thus causing tremendous hardship on his family & himself. Yet we attack the tobacco companies, while letting the alcohol & sports bet companies run riot. if that isn't hypocrisy, then I don't know what is. My solution is that tobacco companies should be given the same leeway as drinking & gambling, or all 3 should be treated equally harshly. The latter won't happen, so the former is the fairest way to all. But it's great the govt is putting its foot down on the kind of thing we saw the other night. If people want to bet, that's fine. But we don't have to have it shoved down our throats. Channel 9 did a good enough job of shoving the state of origin hype & hysteria down our throats anyway.....