What would you think of me, ProPublica’s editor-in-chief responsible for editorial standards, if I bet on the baseball game I’m currently listening to on the radio? Probably I’m doing something many others are doing and my wallet will be lighter in a few innings.
What would you think of me if I managed to win a tidy sum based on the results of a news event covered by ProPublica? You’d probably think that’s downright shady, because isn’t a journalist’s job to report the news and not make money from it?
Lest you think I’m an ethically compromised editor, you can rest easy. According to a recent update of ProPublica’s Code of Ethics“no employee should bet on the outcome of news events on prediction markets, whether or not they are involved in the coverage of said event.”
ProPublica has always prohibited its employees from profiting from inside information. So you may be wondering why we changed our code of ethics to specifically target prediction markets. We have not encountered any such cases among our staff, but it has become increasingly difficult to deny the influence and reach of prediction markets beyond sports. In fact, deals between prediction markets and news agencies abound, like Kalshi with CNN, Fox News And The associated pressand Polymarket with Dow Jones.
But there are also worrying examples of these markets at play. Look at the case of an American soldier involved in ousting Nicolas Maduro from power in Venezuela. reportedly won more than $400,000 betting on the mission. (He was charged with “unlawful use of confidential government information for personal gain, theft of nonpublic government information, commodity fraud, wire fraud and conducting an illegal monetary transaction” according to the Ministry of Justiceand has pleaded not guilty.) Or at political candidates accused of trying to trade their own races. (All three received Kalshi’s fines ranged from around $540 to around $6,230 and was suspended from the platform for five years.) Or even at journalist who detailed receiving threats from players trying to get him to change his report on the impact of a missile in Israel. (He didn’t.)
At ProPublica, we felt it was imperative to establish professional boundaries in a world where someone can have a financial stake in almost everything. Our thinking was: If one of our employees depends on money for a result, can a reader be confident that we are covering a story without bias?
We take your trust seriously and know that it is something that is earned and kept. We have always maintained high standards. The code of ethics specifically urges our journalists to “avoid any action that might cause a reasonable reader to doubt their ability to report fairly or neutrally on the subjects of their coverage.” We know that even the impression that we are doing anything other than working in the public interest is troubling.
When we started seeing cases of people earn money from news event resultsone of our concerns was that readers might think journalists were doing the same. Even betting on news events that ProPublica probably wouldn’t cover, like next year’s presidential election in France, is not a good idea for a journalist. If a member of our team does this, a reader might wonder if they are betting on something closer to home or their area of expertise.
However, we also wanted to be careful not to close the door on activities that do not pose such an existential reputational risk. A bunch of investigative journalists throwing a few dollars into an office sports pool probably won’t make the public believe that we’re incapable of being fair—although some of our team’s allegiances might make readers think we’re punishment-seekers. And investing a little money in a football match is not a big cause for worry. So we were careful to clarify that “betting on sporting events (like the Super Bowl or the Kentucky Derby) and participating in friendly, small-stakes competitions (like office pools on the Oscars) are permitted when legal and when employees are not involved in covering those events.” »
(And even though our code of ethics allows us to bet on sporting events in these cases, I don’t do it because I prefer to spend my money on cheap places and stadium news.)
Other media outlets are also tackling this problem. NPR recently released guidelines which says that “editorial employees are not allowed to use prediction markets or similar sites to bet on developments in current events, or on anything we might cover, or on things controlled by NPR,” including who will appear on upcoming broadcasts. Small office gigs. And The New York Times standards editor said in a memo to staff that “betting on the outcome of current events on prediction markets is a violation of our ethical principles and guidelines and is not permitted.”
Beyond journalism, this issue has also received attention at the national and state levels. Places like Maryland And new York have put in place rules prohibiting state employees from using inside information to bet on prediction markets. And a number of lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives have called for prohibit chamber members and their staff from playing on the platforms.
Our code of ethics is not set in stone, and in the future we may return to this topic and further strengthen our guidelines. Or we could tackle something that’s not even on our radar today. But we will always act with the reader in mind so you know you are getting the truth from people who are accountable only to you. You can bet on it. Actually, maybe don’t do that.
