A significant criticism of poker journalism is that the journalists are overly “close” to the subjects they cover. This issue became particularly prominent during the Absolute / UB “Superuser” scandal that occurred from the mid to late 2000s, continuing until the downfall of the original Full Tilt Poker in 2011.
A situation at the 2014 World Series of Poker Championship Event underscores that seemingly nothing has changed, despite many in the poker community calling for an unbiased outlook on the game.
How Kevmath got into the big dance is a problem
During Day 1C of the tournament, Bluff Magazine journalist and poker expert, Kevin ‘Kevmath’ Mathers was bought into the event, not with his own money, however. Players including Daniel Alaei and Daniel Negreanu generously contributed until they reached the $10,000 buy-in. Bluff’s website fully detailed this purchase, showcasing the event’s apparent glory.
However, this inherently possesses a problem.
Journalists, regardless of their field, should not accept gifts that could lead to personal gain. They should also avoid accepting gifts that could potentially influence their reportage in an unfortunate future scenario. They are expected to report the story, not become a part of it.
It should be acknowledged that Mathers indeed produces commendable work. He usually responds swiftly and accurately to questions asked across different social media platforms. However, any individual with a little access to poker tournaments and websites, which is a common occurrence, and the ability to use Google could potentially do the same.
Anyone, particularly someone who reports on the same people giving him the money, should find it ethically inappropriate to accept a $10,000 buy-in for performing such minor tasks. It seems that the agreement allows Mathers to retain 30% of any winnings, with the distribution being a 70/30 split.
Where do you draw the line?
Some might question, “How is that different from accepting a poker book?” or “How does it differ from accepting a stake to try out an online poker room?”
There are huge differences.
A book priced at $25 won’t significantly influence many people’s opinions, and neither would a $50 or $100 wager in a poker room. Furthermore, ethical considerations come into effect when writing for an eager audience like the poker community.
Regardless of whether I purchase a book or receive it for free, I always scrutinize each one with the same critical eye as any other reader would.
I recently castigated Colson Whitehead’s The Noble Hustle due to the fact that it was, in reality, a terrible book. In addition, I’ve critiqued software (both acquired and gifted) and movies (similarly, and you’d rather not know the quantity) with the same discerning approach, merely because poker enthusiasts are keen on seeking out the finest offerings available to them.
“My wife also highlighted an aspect regarding such circumstances. She asked me, “Didn’t the guy from Positively Fifth Street get staked? The author of the book you detested experienced the same, didn’t he?”
Completely different situations.
Both Jim McManus, whose name she couldn’t remember, and Whitehead received entry into the Championship Event through the media outlets they represented. McManus’ original work was published in Harper’s Magazine, while Whitehead’s appeared on Grantland.com. In both instances, their role as writers involved crafting an engaging or unique perspective on a culture that is often misunderstood.
They weren’t awarded (or staked) $10,000 simply because they were deemed a “good guy.”
Just to clarify, there was one instance in my journalism career where I received a buy-in. It occurred in 2006 when I was working for a website and they “gifted” me a buy-in to a $1500 WSOP event as a bonus for my work during the tournament (where I outlasted 1000 out of 2500 players!). However, I have never accepted a tip from any player or even a meal. We have occasionally shared drinks, but I always made sure to return the favor.
The most significant journalistic mistake I may have committed is permitting a player or the subject of an article I’ve composed to review the copy before submission.
The reason? Ethical balance.
The poker community certainly requires an impartial and active approach to journalism. Regrettably, instances like the Mathers situation do not advance this aim. It also discredits the work of potentially hundreds or even thousands of journalists and poker media members who have been involved in the industry for at least as long as I have (a decade) or possibly longer.
“As Alaei described it, “a nice thing to do” doesn’t suffice when seeking an impartial media, which Bluff apparently has no desire to participate in.
