Journal Promotes Gambling

Gambling . . . Excuse me, I should use today's politically correct term, promoted by industry executives, lobbyists and legislators. "GAMING" is one of the largest industries in the U.S. It accounts for over $50 million in contributions politicians.

In fact, gambling is bigger than theme parks, the movie industry and outdoor sports. Actually, it is bigger than all of these COMBINED. It is so big and has such a huge media presence that we do not even question it any more--on the national or local scene.

Today's front page Albuquerque Journal story, "3 Groups Vying for State's Last Racetrack Liscense" filled a full page and a half of section A.

The writer, Charles Blount, touted the the economic BENEFITS of the proposed "racinos" again and again. Each "racino" would have 600 "state of the art" slot machines.

Unfortunately, Blount made NO attempt to point out the negative impact of injecting gambling into a small town NM community. He promoted the increase in jobs and the "annual economic impact" of the racinos ad nauseum, but REFUSED TO INFORM HIS READERS OF THE BALANCING NEGATIVE IMPACT OF GAMBLING.

Blount could have sought out some experts on gambling and included them in his story which painted such a positive face on gambling. I am not an expert, but the following have all been mentioned as negative and expensive impacts of introducing gambling to a community:

1) Less disposable income for community members who lose at the racino. The huge amounts generated by casinos has to come from individuals.

Most individuals in small town NM have precious little money they can afford to lose. For example, most New Mexicans cannot pay for their retirement.

2) Lost jobs at other businesses when community members have less disposable income to spend upon things like restaurants, home repair, health care, education, retirement, etc.

3) Increased crime and drug addiction associated with problem gamblers.

4) Increased tax burden upon community institutions that have to pick up the slack for the above (police, hospitals, agencies, etc.).

The Journal routinely neglects to honor the basic ethics of professional journalism, but this is a particularly egregious example of omission.

Sigh.