Yet another article where the media is sanewashing the subject at hand
> Then there's the potential for insider trading, something that has dogged the prediction market industry, …
From a 2025 article [1]
> Coplan said, “Nobody is under the impression that nobody knows the answer, right? Like, of course, there’s people who are working on it that know when it’s going to come. And I think what’s cool about Polymarket is that it creates this financial incentive for people to go and divulge the information to the market and the market to change, and all of a sudden it’s trading at 95 cents.”
I didn’t know you could be described as being dogged by an issue that you actively courted and espoused. Additionally I remembered that quote but it took effort to find as it appears Kalshi and Polymarket decided the heat on those views was a little too much and have done a PR wave since January of this year to claim that they totally don’t support insider trading despite that being a core of their business concept.
I guess we’ve always been at war with East Asia again, I’ll update my firmware to be a good little drone if even media organizations like npr and apnews are just going to be this blatant with reframing history
Kalshi and Polymarket having to do a wave of publicity to try to take off the heat over insider trading shows that the issue of insider trading is in fact dogging the industry.
The NPR article's level of discussion of insider trading is entirely appropriate for an article that is not about insider trading.
> “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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Using the word "dogged" to describe a problem for companies that is a direct result of their business model, which the CEO's have admitted is their business model, and talk about how its a positive, is not neutral and where you lose me.
> '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.
I linked an article with Polymarket(kalshi's competitor) and his statements on this. Do you think those comments didnt imply they felt insider trading was the goal?
> The problem with reporting that's not making an effort at neutrality as NPR does.
Wasn't neutral. The term "dogged" has non neutral connotations, and the term didnt come from someone else they were quoting.
> If you're not taking a radical stance (and I call out "Yet another article...", as radical)
I did not expect you to look through my post history, so I would not judge you negatively for thinking this was radical if it came out of the blue, but it was in reference to a comment thread I was in previously with several other examples of sanewashing coming from apnews where I had several examples[1]. Including at least one where they explicitly changed the reported quote from "fourth" to "third" because the one using "fourth" invoked multiple issues.
> 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.
NPR, reuters, and apnews used to be news organizations I looked to for unbiased news beyond the infotainment organizations like Fox News(stated in court they werent news), and CNN and CBS after they got bought up by conservative billionaires and then ran by Bari Weiss. However, ever since the past 2 years of this admin attacking news organization for reporting on events in a way that offends the king, they appear to have lost their balls and are reporting on things in a way that is subjective or not reflective of reality.
I see where this is going. It’s the flip side of the Trump coin as expressed to me by my neighbor who I only just met: “President Trump is the only president in my lifetime who has any _balls_!” (he was yelling this at me at this point).
The complete transformation and legitimization of betting culture in the United States has been surreal to watch. From you had to know a guy to baseball TV announcers giving odds on a home run this inning in less than a decade.
I know this is hard to conceive of, but there was a time when there were no gambling ads on TV! The crazy part? The other half of the ads you see on TV (pharmaceuticals) weren't there either!
The ability to bet on the outcome of any event is a guarantee of corruption in any event. We've seen the president's teleprompter operator bet on his speeches, we've seen journalists threatened in an attempt to get them to reword an article in order to resolve a bet differently, we've seen several sports betting scandals. What we haven't seen is any indication that this will get better without regulation, and now we're seeing betting markets fight like hell to introduce their rot into the institutions at the bedrock of our society. It needs to stop.
Doesn't the insurance market have the same moral hazard?
If you are paying for fire insurance it promises you a bundle of cash if your business burns down. At that point if the finances of your company go into the red, your only chance of becoming whole financially might involve a fire, and then you start calling folks like Tony Soprano to find an arsonist
It seems entirely fair to me that you can't wager against something that you directly had a hand in the outcome of, even accepting the bunk premise that these wagers are legal in the first place.
So much outrage nowadays is driven by a belief that people are entitled to profit off of every possible thing in life, how dreadful.
14 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 26.4 ms ] thread> Then there's the potential for insider trading, something that has dogged the prediction market industry, …
From a 2025 article [1]
> Coplan said, “Nobody is under the impression that nobody knows the answer, right? Like, of course, there’s people who are working on it that know when it’s going to come. And I think what’s cool about Polymarket is that it creates this financial incentive for people to go and divulge the information to the market and the market to change, and all of a sudden it’s trading at 95 cents.”
I didn’t know you could be described as being dogged by an issue that you actively courted and espoused. Additionally I remembered that quote but it took effort to find as it appears Kalshi and Polymarket decided the heat on those views was a little too much and have done a PR wave since January of this year to claim that they totally don’t support insider trading despite that being a core of their business concept.
I guess we’ve always been at war with East Asia again, I’ll update my firmware to be a good little drone if even media organizations like npr and apnews are just going to be this blatant with reframing history
[1] https://casinobeats.com/2025/11/20/polymarket-founder-shayne...
Kalshi and Polymarket having to do a wave of publicity to try to take off the heat over insider trading shows that the issue of insider trading is in fact dogging the industry.
The NPR article's level of discussion of insider trading is entirely appropriate for an article that is not about insider trading.
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.
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.
> NPR is a news machine designed for neutrality.
Using the word "dogged" to describe a problem for companies that is a direct result of their business model, which the CEO's have admitted is their business model, and talk about how its a positive, is not neutral and where you lose me.
> '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.
I linked an article with Polymarket(kalshi's competitor) and his statements on this. Do you think those comments didnt imply they felt insider trading was the goal?
> The problem with reporting that's not making an effort at neutrality as NPR does.
Wasn't neutral. The term "dogged" has non neutral connotations, and the term didnt come from someone else they were quoting.
> If you're not taking a radical stance (and I call out "Yet another article...", as radical)
I did not expect you to look through my post history, so I would not judge you negatively for thinking this was radical if it came out of the blue, but it was in reference to a comment thread I was in previously with several other examples of sanewashing coming from apnews where I had several examples[1]. Including at least one where they explicitly changed the reported quote from "fourth" to "third" because the one using "fourth" invoked multiple issues.
> 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.
NPR, reuters, and apnews used to be news organizations I looked to for unbiased news beyond the infotainment organizations like Fox News(stated in court they werent news), and CNN and CBS after they got bought up by conservative billionaires and then ran by Bari Weiss. However, ever since the past 2 years of this admin attacking news organization for reporting on events in a way that offends the king, they appear to have lost their balls and are reporting on things in a way that is subjective or not reflective of reality.
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49088418
I see where this is going. It’s the flip side of the Trump coin as expressed to me by my neighbor who I only just met: “President Trump is the only president in my lifetime who has any _balls_!” (he was yelling this at me at this point).
I think your vision of news is without praxis.
Peace.
I know this is hard to conceive of, but there was a time when there were no gambling ads on TV! The crazy part? The other half of the ads you see on TV (pharmaceuticals) weren't there either!
So much outrage nowadays is driven by a belief that people are entitled to profit off of every possible thing in life, how dreadful.