All that and a bag of mail – outkick the coverage o o data recovery

And right off the jump I am still fired up about how insanely stupid it was of the Nashville Predators to become the first pro sports franchise ever to endorse an actual political candidate on behalf of the team. So are a ton of you judging by my emails. This is a awful precedent to set and it has led to something almost unheard of an in Outkick Twitter poll — virtually unanimous disagreement with the Predators decision.

In addition to being incredibly stupid, it appears @PredsNHL also violated Tennessee state law by endorsing a political candidate in a video filmed in a publicly owned building. It’s not their arena, it’s the taxpayer’s arena.

Speaking of an escape from politics, we’re having Outkick the Weekend at the Hard Rock Hotel in Las Vegas from August 23rd to 26th.

If you’re a lawyer reading this you can also get eight hours of CLE there. Sign up for the event here. And if you’re a lawyer who wants CLE credit sign up here.

“In light of the idiotic decision by the Predators to allow CEO Sean Henry to endorse a mayoral candidate for the franchise, I wanted to ask a question that has bothered me since the 2008 election, which was the first one I voted in. Why are newspapers allowed to endorse political candidates? I understand that a truly neutral press no longer exists, but most outlets want to keep up the facade of objectivity. Also a quick Google search showed the NYT endorsing Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 election, so it is not like this is a new trend. I remember thinking as a high school senior looking at a list of newspapers that had endorsed Obama and McCain, “how is this allowed to happen?”

The better question to me is this, “why would a newspaper that claims to be nonpartisan in all its reporting — we can clearly see that nonpartisan isn’t true for most papers, but let’s presume it’s true here — suddenly turn around and endorse a candidate just before an election?”

Personally I think all the “unbiased” claptrap is just a business slogan, anyway. If you claim to be “unbiased” then theoretically your business model allows you to sell newspapers to everyone in the entire country as opposed to just people who are allied with one party or the other. Get out of here with all your paean’s to the importance of journalism, it’s the business, stupid.

Now the newspaper would say that the endorsement comes from their editorial section, which is the part of the newspaper that specifically features opinion, but I’m not sure most people really make that distinction. Especially not in the modern day when that opinion piece is likely to be read online and sections of newspaper don’t matter.

What’s more, the newspaper’s editorial page regularly features opinion pieces written on behalf of the newspaper itself as opposed to columnists. Which leads to this question: why does the newspaper editorial board need to have opinions at all these days? Why should the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal be weighing in on any political issue at all? Why not just allow individual columnists to make arguments for or against things and keep the newspaper above the fray when it comes to “official” opinions?

The same could be true, by the way, of the teams and leagues. If you’re the Dallas Cowboys wouldn’t you rather have your fans betting on your games and making money off of it than just taking ad dollars? I think the answer is probably yes. (Which also raises, by the way, the fact that some sports franchises are going to be in states where sports gambling is legal and others aren’t. How impactful could that end up being on franchise values? The Utah Jazz are probably never going to allow sports gambling whereas the Las Vegas Raiders are going to be located right in the heart of gambling central. That has to impact the value of a franchise.)

Finally, if I were the networks, I’d be greenlighting a bunch of gambling focused shows to fit the advertising market going forward. I’d even be contemplating flipping an entire network to just focus on gambling. Can you imagine how cool it would be to have a station that was basically CNBC meets sports gambling, where the ticker, instead of sports news, is entirely live lines going up or down all day long. And every time a line moves, just like a stock moves, you cover it as breaking news like CNBC does?

“You mentioned in your article re SCOTUS striking down the federal ban on sports gambling that you suspect there will be “rapid innovation in this space and the business behind sports gambling will have a tremendous and long lasting impact on sports…” From an investment perspective, what avenues, businesses, corporations, etc. would you recommend investing in? In other words, if you had a boatload of money to invest, what would you invest in, if anything, and what would be your strategy to maximize making money on this ruling?”