While everyone might think it is so, being a “poker journalist” (and there’s a great deal of debate over that title – many just want to say they’re a “blogger,” a “columnist” or an editorial writer) isn’t the easiest way to make a living. The hours can be lengthy, especially for those that cover tournaments for a living, and the pay for many is but a pittance compared to the time that they put into their creations (I’ve been fortunate enough to be able to do well in my course in this career, but I also have seen those that literally worked for free to “get exposure”). There are a handful of writers in the poker news business that can offer their opinion, sometimes to the detriment of that writer.
Last week, now-former PokerNews writer Martin Derbyshire took part in a “Point/Counterpoint” discussion entitled “A PokerNews Debate: Should Professional Poker Exist?” regarding the worth of today’s poker professional in the overall world view. In these editorial discussions, two writers take on a complicated subject, with one taking a supporting view of it while the second takes the opposing view. It is a popular form of debate overall and has even been parodied on Saturday Night Live.
It is tough to know what exactly was said since PokerNews completely yanked the article from the site, but apparently Derbyshire’s cohort was supportive of poker professionals and poker players overall. It is the comments that Derbyshire made (and were screen-captured by poker professional Melissa Burr), however, that has drawn the ire of those not only who consider themselves professionals in the game but also the remainder of the playing community and the fans who watch the game. Many have cited this comment for scorn in particular (this is a quote from the now scratched article):
“The rest of the professional poker playing community is simply gambling for a living. They make few, if any, contribution to society. For the most part, these are relatively smart people who choose greed, laziness, and self-delusion as their path. They are otherwise capable of doing something a little more meaningful with their lives.”
Derbyshire’s scathing accusations of the poker community naturally set off a firestorm, in particular because he was completely, utterly, out of his mind wrong. Whereas it might have subsided if, after some conversation with people, Derbyshire would have acquiesced his position, he instead lashed out at those who were attempting to point out his error. The resulting firestorm grew to a point that eventually Derbyshire resigned (fired? We’ll probably never know) from PokerNews in a lengthy Tweet.
In his apology, which he announced the termination of his position with PokerNews, Derbyshire admits that his commentary was “hurtful and inflammatory” towards many in the poker community. “I let my desire to drive traffic, increase hits and rise to a relevance as a columnist cloud my judgment (and my) ability to empathize and understand how others may perceive my words.” He also apologized for the lack of couth in accepting the criticism that came his way and the insults hurled as a result.
What makes the apology a bit hollow is the last paragraph. Instead of graciously saying “thanks for the time,” Derbyshire instead said, “I could go on about how I’m being treated unfairly, that this is an overreaction, that the positive nature of the overwhelming majority of my work in poker is being ignored and that the gang-up mentality employed by many people in this case was as bad as anything I ever wrote. Instead, I will simply say goodbye, and good luck.”
The issue here isn’t whether the poker community is mistreating Derbyshire. He knows that he was in the wrong and admitted that, with incendiary commentary, was looking to “poke the bear” and stir up trouble. But the entire affair does lend one to ask just how much truth does the poker community want in its journalistic watchdogs.
This debate stretches back to the Ultimate Bet “Super User” scandal. In that scandal, owner and former World Champion Russ Hamilton and his coconspirators absconded with upwards of $22 million from the site from using a “god-mode” program that allowed users to see their opponents’ cards. The same situation occurred at Absolute Poker and would be something that the online room had difficulty coming back from.
While these situations were incredibly huge for the industry, they went largely unreported when they occurred by the poker media (this writer included). Because of the incestuous nature of the online poker news sites – driven by affiliate revenues at that time from the same online rooms that perpetrated these acts – it was often that writers might come across stories that painted the rooms in a bad light that were quashed by editors and/or owners of the sites. It wasn’t until well after the cases came up (and the culprits escaping) that the poker journalism industry opened on the subject (a notable exception in the “Super User” case was Haley Hintze, who has long promised a book on her investigation).
Since then, there’s been the cry from the poker community for the poker news sites to be more proactive a watchdog on the industry (online in particular). This has led to some excellent reporting (Brad Willis’ four-part story in print in 2015 was particularly outstanding) but has also led to stories that are more “clickbaitish” rather than actually delivering anything of substance (really, how many times do we have to see stories on the “Top 5 States that Might Pass Online Poker Regulations?”). It also leads to questions as to just how much truth the readers of poker news sites want (do they REALLY need to know about high-stakes pros who are welching on their debts? Or do they want to get more “tabloidish” in their news?).
There are a few problems with this. First, the poker “journalism” field has been around for a short time. While such practitioners as Max Shapiro, Mike Paulle, Nolan Dalla and the late Andy Glazer and Lou Krieger seem to have been around forever, attention to their work only started coming out in the 1990s. Of those that started in the business with me in the early 2000s, I can probably count on one hand the number that are still actively in the business. Why so few? For many it’s the money, for many they find the joys of family life and for many others they find something else they like to do better. When your “profession” is barely old enough to drink, it has some growing pains to work out.
Second, there is the fact that people aren’t paid to put a great deal of research into the work. Once again, the online poker news sites offer wages that in some cases are lower than minimum wage. To do outside work such as research, phone calls, physically running down people for a quote or a plane ticket to further investigate an occurrence (and the costs involved with such efforts) is entirely on the writer. In a normal journalistic experience, that would be paid by the publisher – the online poker news site. That isn’t showing any signs of changing.
I plan on being around for some time and have noticed changes since I started in this business. We are beginning to find the balance between being poker news sites and publicity vehicles. There’s also a fine way to judge just what poker “journalists” should follow – it’s called ethics. But we’ve got to know just how deep the poker news consumer wants us to go, otherwise we’ll repeat the same errors we’ve already made.
thank you, this is really good information!