The more I read this article this morning about Kalshi and its connections to mainstream media, the more nauseated I became. Of course, we live in a county where casinos are popping up like weeds, states run lotteries (aka legalized gambling), the occupant of what is left of the White House and his family and cronies are raking in billions of dollars through world-class grifting based on insider information so they can fill their pockets with our tax dollars, members of the SCOTUS are lavishly showered with gifts from the rich to curry influence and sports betting is condoned and celebrated.
Look, I'm no prude but I find it bizarre that there are actually platforms that allow betting on just about everything under the sun. I also realize that for decades I have been investing in the stock market which involves inherent risk and has been referred to as legalized gambling. Maybe that is the same as this Kalshi shit but this Boomer has a hard time wrapping his head around it.
Calling these things "prediction" markets ignores the fact that they are basically gambling. They don't predict anything, they guess on outcomes which is what all gambling is based on. The stock market is also a form of gambling because traders' sentiments and beliefs are factored into the activity. Since CNBC doesn't always disclose it's financial connection to Kalshi shouldn't someone file a complaint with the FCC?
Just because gamblers “put their money where their mouth is” doesn't mean they know jack shit. These people 'predict' ("bet"/"gamble") on how long the National Anthem will last before the Super Bowl. They're gamblers....
“……While polling relies on volunteers, Enten repeatedly reminds CNN viewers that prediction markets are driven by people who “put their money where their mouth is.” ….
“Prediction markets offer just one source of data that journalists can use in telling a story,” a CNN spokesman said in response to a request for comment. “It is used as a complement to other reporting and data sources, such as polling. It is not a replacement for other sources and has no impact on editorial independence.”
I think both of these statements are true, but ignore the larger issue. The primary concern is one of amplification. Anyone with a keyboard can amplify an opinion, regardless of truth, credibility, or subject matter expertise. Anyone with money can amplify and distort some financial or event reality by making a bet or investing money on a bet in the financial markets. Some of those things can move markets. Artificially. Outside of accounting quantification. This is the source of bubbles, misinformation, and even poor strategic directions by people and industries in question.
Questioning a source’s credibility and integrity is one equalizer. “Mo money” and the ability to invest, or having a loud voice on social media, does not make a subject matter expert. All of us have our own biases and “subject matter expertise”. The best subject matter experts know when to say, “I am not the subject matter expert” and stating their deficiencies and biases clearly. Social media, prediction markets, and other sources have short circuited our “I am calling BS” tendencies.
Sorry, Kalshi, but people are incredibly effing dumb. I'd bet you're deliberately shading your thoughts on that....if it wasn't for dumb people ("suckers") you'd have no business...
With "reporting" on betting markets, rather than paying to put actual reporters into the field to find and research stories, the legacy media's devolution from news to infotainment is nearly complete. Final step: Asking ChatGPT to invent news-like stories from random internet posts.
Even when they disclose that a "partnership" exists, as far as I know they have never disclosed if CNN or CNBC receive payment for referrals to Kalshi and, if so, how much. This seems essential to understanding what conflicts of interest there are. This looks like paid advertising being presented as news.
This is also true of the Wall Street Journal which "features" Polymarket prediction markets every day on their web site. Polymarket has a financial deal with WSJ-owner Dow Jones.
While, as noted in this article, WSJ has done quite good investigation into the Prediction Gambling Markets' failures and flaws, nonetheless they are simultaneously giving Polymarket an imprimatur of the august WSJ brand for some, unknown, compensation.
Wow. This is incredible. Completely unethical!
The more I read this article this morning about Kalshi and its connections to mainstream media, the more nauseated I became. Of course, we live in a county where casinos are popping up like weeds, states run lotteries (aka legalized gambling), the occupant of what is left of the White House and his family and cronies are raking in billions of dollars through world-class grifting based on insider information so they can fill their pockets with our tax dollars, members of the SCOTUS are lavishly showered with gifts from the rich to curry influence and sports betting is condoned and celebrated.
Look, I'm no prude but I find it bizarre that there are actually platforms that allow betting on just about everything under the sun. I also realize that for decades I have been investing in the stock market which involves inherent risk and has been referred to as legalized gambling. Maybe that is the same as this Kalshi shit but this Boomer has a hard time wrapping his head around it.
If, instead of calling them “ prediction markets,” we referred to them as “bookmakers,” could the press be steered away from sharing the odds?
We do exactly that here:
Gambling as Journalism—Shall We Gamify the News?
https://mediaanddemocracyproject.substack.com/p/gambling-as-journalismshall-we-gamify
“Sounds to me like you guys are a couple of bookies.”
The AI voice reading this article pronounces Kalshi as “kalsher.” Stares in 2026.
Calling these things "prediction" markets ignores the fact that they are basically gambling. They don't predict anything, they guess on outcomes which is what all gambling is based on. The stock market is also a form of gambling because traders' sentiments and beliefs are factored into the activity. Since CNBC doesn't always disclose it's financial connection to Kalshi shouldn't someone file a complaint with the FCC?
Just because gamblers “put their money where their mouth is” doesn't mean they know jack shit. These people 'predict' ("bet"/"gamble") on how long the National Anthem will last before the Super Bowl. They're gamblers....
Even a national anthem bet has more of a foundation than political "predictions."
“……While polling relies on volunteers, Enten repeatedly reminds CNN viewers that prediction markets are driven by people who “put their money where their mouth is.” ….
“Prediction markets offer just one source of data that journalists can use in telling a story,” a CNN spokesman said in response to a request for comment. “It is used as a complement to other reporting and data sources, such as polling. It is not a replacement for other sources and has no impact on editorial independence.”
I think both of these statements are true, but ignore the larger issue. The primary concern is one of amplification. Anyone with a keyboard can amplify an opinion, regardless of truth, credibility, or subject matter expertise. Anyone with money can amplify and distort some financial or event reality by making a bet or investing money on a bet in the financial markets. Some of those things can move markets. Artificially. Outside of accounting quantification. This is the source of bubbles, misinformation, and even poor strategic directions by people and industries in question.
Questioning a source’s credibility and integrity is one equalizer. “Mo money” and the ability to invest, or having a loud voice on social media, does not make a subject matter expert. All of us have our own biases and “subject matter expertise”. The best subject matter experts know when to say, “I am not the subject matter expert” and stating their deficiencies and biases clearly. Social media, prediction markets, and other sources have short circuited our “I am calling BS” tendencies.
Sorry, Kalshi, but people are incredibly effing dumb. I'd bet you're deliberately shading your thoughts on that....if it wasn't for dumb people ("suckers") you'd have no business...
With "reporting" on betting markets, rather than paying to put actual reporters into the field to find and research stories, the legacy media's devolution from news to infotainment is nearly complete. Final step: Asking ChatGPT to invent news-like stories from random internet posts.
There are probably less than one million Americans (of 340 million) who understand the difference between scientific polling and this bullshit.
Harry Enten should certainly know the distinction.
A prediction market that allows them to put their thumb on the scale.
This is DISGUSTING! Agree with all of the above.
More manipulation of our politics
Even when they disclose that a "partnership" exists, as far as I know they have never disclosed if CNN or CNBC receive payment for referrals to Kalshi and, if so, how much. This seems essential to understanding what conflicts of interest there are. This looks like paid advertising being presented as news.
This is also true of the Wall Street Journal which "features" Polymarket prediction markets every day on their web site. Polymarket has a financial deal with WSJ-owner Dow Jones.
While, as noted in this article, WSJ has done quite good investigation into the Prediction Gambling Markets' failures and flaws, nonetheless they are simultaneously giving Polymarket an imprimatur of the august WSJ brand for some, unknown, compensation.
Prediction markets and crypto need to be heavily regulated, if not banned.