[xtiansimon]

> “Yet another article where the media is sanewashing the subject at hand.”

I agree this level of public gambling is crazy. Though I’m dismayed with the criticism of mainstream media not taking a stronger stance, which I take is your criticism. Isn’t that a page from the likes of Fox News? Bringing punditry into news? Moral outrage regarding what otherwise appears to be a legal business (online betting)? Even the link you provide used the word “hints” to describe insider trading: “Polymarket Founder Shayne Coplan Hints That Insider Trading is Cool & Sportsbooks are a Scam”

I get that you’re angry, but I don’t understand why NPR is the villain.

[lovich]

They didn’t need moral outrage. They needed to not report on this like insider trading was some problem these companies were having that they were trying to avoid or fix when the CEOs have publicly stated it was their goal.

[xtiansimon]

> _"They needed to not..."_

I think I'm reading a moral stance in your comments. Like Commandments. "Thou shall not bear false witness". Maybe a radical stance in the context of news? I conclude you're demanding "mainstream media" (NPR) adopt a radical type of reporting and, yes, outrage by the use of your term "sanewashing". This is where you lose me.

NPR is a news machine designed for neutrality. If there's a failure, I would say it's *Naivete*. A presumption of regularity and the rule of law will prevail. And if the reporter was also naive, then it's in the face of <evidence>. What's the purpose of taking one article and painting all news media as corrupt?

I'm ready to grant that your conclusion [1] _"CEOs have publicly stated [insider trading] was their goal"_ is possible for some CEO. And unless you're an insider or receiving private information (which you've not claimed here), then your ground knowledge comes from reporting.

The problem with reporting that's not making an effort at neutrality as NPR does, is relying on sources whose positions are blatantly one-sided or whose information is so complex [2] only a few can determine its veracity from one article to the next. Mainstream News about complex issues fundamentally lags real-time, because it comes from the people who report it and from the people willing to go on record, and some editorial process of evaluation. The moral crisis of mainstream media has always been ownership (gatekeeping), but NPR is "funded by people like you".

If you're not taking a radical stance (and I call out "Yet another article...", as radical), then something else is driving this vehemence and absolute certainty that all CEOs are crooks and so are all the mainstream news agencies (NPR) reporting about them. I'm sorry if you've been personally hurt (or threatened, as I feel about the AI bubble; that's another story), but I don't feel informed from your comments, or inspired to _take up arms_ following your reasoning.

I think, dammit. We're between a rock and the hard place, and I'm going to be late to act. But I'm not going to throw NPR on the pyre. I will defend conscientious reporting where ever I find it.

[1]: I say "conclusion" because it must be a conclusion of reasoning to take the _may_ in the article you offered and insist it means _must_. [2]: using the novel definition of 'complex' vs. 'complicated' where complex differentiates systems with social dynamics separate from systems with organization charts.