Media Coverage of AP scandal: Good or bad - Page 5

MicroBob · #41 10-18-2007, 10:51 PM

my influence would be minimal but now that I think about it perhaps he would let me see a completed script of the story before it airs to perhaps scan for any noticeable errors or something like that.

I'm really not sure I want to push them towards airing this though. And it's possible he might just say, "that's nice" and then move on. Really haven't decided yet whethter to drop him a line or not.

kdog · #42 10-18-2007, 10:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is why I was considering contacting my producer friend at Fox News just to steer him in the right direction if he thought it was a story worth pursuing.
He's really good at what he does but is completely clueless about anything gambling-related and probably would only have a vague notion of where to start

[/ QUOTE ]

I smell a nice consulting fee [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Alobar · #43 10-19-2007, 01:16 AM

When UIGEA passed, I had tons of people ask me "what are you going to do now that they made online poker illegal?". Ive had a TON of people, when they find out I play poker online for a living go "I thought they made that illegal?". Obviously people hear a snippet on the news and it gets distorted.

I suspect that for quite some time now I am going to hear "Did you hear, online poker is a big scam" from tons of people. Which is even worse considering most people already think online poker is rigged (and/or illegal).

There is no upside to this. People saying this could be good and will lead to regulation, make me laugh. No politician is going to go "see, we need to regulate online gambling so this doesnt happen" they will all go "see, this is why online gambling should be illegal". If they wanted to regulate online gambling they would have done it already instead of passing laws to try and stop it. This will only add fuel to the fire and make any repeal of UIGEA that much tougher. I can already see the future now, distorted unfactual claims of this cheating incident being used in congress when whatever bill finally trys to get repealed (or the same half truths being used in support of a new bill to ban it outright)

MicroBob · #44 10-19-2007, 03:25 AM

alobar - I kind of bounce back and forth between your viewpoint and Lori's that maybe it won't end up being that big a deal anyway.
But mostly you are exactly where I was coming from. I have no concerns about the drying-up of the games or whatever.
I'm concerned about the pro-UIGEA people getting this "see, we told you so" stuff to add to their arsenal for when they want to step up enforcement even more strictly...or just to fight those who would like to repeal it.

Thinking that something like this could somehow lead to a greater likelihood of "see, we really need to regulate this in the U.S." seems extremely far-fetched indeed.

WhoIam · #45 10-19-2007, 04:17 AM

There could maybe be a kinda-sorta upside to this if it were responsibly reported. From what we've seen previously, this is the least likely scenario. The main losers would be US players and sites like FT and Stars that are not incorporated in 1st world countries. Europeans and sites based in Europe will probably be unaffected.

I also want to say that most of us on here play a significant amount of online poker and this story getting wide coverage is just going to worry our family and friends unnecessarily.

Leader · #46 10-19-2007, 05:17 AM

If increased media coverage causes what really happened here to come out in full, it's a good thing. The concept that covering this thing up was ever a workable solution is deeply flawed. It's the same kind of thinking that so many use to justify doing nothing about their personal problems. Ignore the issue and it will go away. This doesn't work. It didn't work at Enron or Worldcom. It's not going to work on a crummy job or marriage, and it won't work here. The industry needs to address its problems that is the only way it will be viable long term. An industry which defrauds people and lacks transparency doesn't deserve legitimacy. If media coverage results in this transparency then the industry will be far closer to being legitimate, which is an essential step on the path to our ultimate goal, full legality.

Is what happened good? No. Is it coming out as soon and as fully as possible good? Yes.

riverspecialist · #47 10-19-2007, 06:07 AM

ooo, a cover up wont work. very profound guys. if we are refuting someone, why is no one quoting the original? Its because no one said this.

only me saying i wish this could have been done with us having a say so in how it was handled since it is us who got screwed. once those hand histories came out, almost no matter what AP was going down. but everyone wants to act like we gotta lead some crusade after something thats become inevitable. but now the discussion is eveolving and saying "is there a snowballs chance in hell we make sure this gets reported accurately?" now we're gonna get stuck with rumor mills pumping out terrible sound bites that will be used to screw us again.

maybe i was on to something after all

entertainme · #48 10-19-2007, 07:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The industry needs to address its problems that is the only way it will be viable long term. An industry which defrauds people and lacks transparency doesn't deserve legitimacy. If media coverage results in this transparency then the industry will be far closer to being legitimate, which is an essential step on the path to our ultimate goal, full legality.

Is what happened good? No. Is it coming out as soon and as fully as possible good? Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Albino Lord · #49 10-19-2007, 01:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect that for quite some time now I am going to hear "Did you hear, online poker is a big scam" from tons of people. Which is even worse considering most people already think online poker is rigged (and/or illegal).

There is no upside to this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Working in the media industry I can avow that the extreme majority of people who hear this story will completely get the wrong idea. Half-ass reporting and a half-listening audience equates to everyone getting the facts wrong. I agree with those that say this will only fuel anti-poker sentiment within Congress. Repealing the UIGEA will be more difficult now that the opposition has ammunition to attack online poker.

For people who don't play poker, especially online, this one case will become the rule, not the exception.

freecard4all · #50 10-19-2007, 04:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Can't see an upside here.

[/ QUOTE ]
until now there wasn't a single case. Do you think there were no cheating? No bots? No collusion?

These cheaters here were out of line. Like kids that find out how to use a gun. And it got resolved.

This finally proved that if there's a proven cheating you won't get a response "it's only variance - move on".
This is definitely EV+.
Promote it that way and poker won't lose costumers.

The only bad thing in this case was the behavior of Absolute.