This partial transcript was computer-generated. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.
Mina Kim: Welcome to Forum. I’m Mina Kim.
Prediction markets — where people can bet money on, well, just about everything — have entered mainstream media. Last month, CNN announced a deal with the prediction market platform Kalshi to report betting odds on news events. And here was CNN’s chief data analyst, Harry Enten, earlier this month, sharing what bettors thought the chances were of Donald Trump buying Greenland.
Harry Enten (clip): Yeah. Are people in the public taking it seriously? The people who are putting their money where their mouth is? They’re absolutely taking it seriously. I mean, take a look here. The chance that Trump buys any of Greenland by the end of his term — on Friday, it was just 12 percent. Whoa. Way up there now to 36 percent. A tripling in less than a week. My goodness gracious.
Mina Kim: So what impact could this integration of prediction markets and the news have?
We’re joined this hour by Danny Funt, whose recent piece for The New Yorker is “America’s Betting Craze Has Spread to Its News Networks.” He’s also the author of the new book Everybody Loses: The Tumultuous Rise of American Sports Gambling. Danny, welcome to Forum.
Danny Funt: Good morning. Thanks for having me.
Mina Kim: I gave that Greenland example. Give our listeners a sense of what other news events people are betting on these days. How broad — or how specific — does it get?
Danny Funt: The sky is truly the limit, and that’s the ambition of these companies. As the CEO of Kalshi, one of the top prediction markets, put it: their ultimate goal is for every disagreement two people might have to be something you could bet on on their site.
Right now, it ranges from high-stakes events like military actions or who the next major-party presidential nominee will be, to things as trivial as whether it will rain tomorrow in New York City. They’re adding hundreds of markets constantly, and the trajectory seems to be that almost everything imaginable could become a betting opportunity.
Mina Kim: Wow. How do news networks justify betting odds on news events as valuable information?
Danny Funt: There is, for lack of a better term, significant predictive power in these markets. When you have large numbers of people betting and bringing all kinds of information to their decisions — whether polls, market trends, or even inside knowledge — and you distill all of that activity into a single number, the odds can be remarkably accurate, or at least more predictive than opinion polls and other tools we commonly rely on.
There’s a fairly long history of carefully incorporating prediction market data into election coverage. But using these odds for all kinds of breaking news stories — like the CNN example you played — that’s quite novel and controversial.
Mina Kim: And that’s one way they’re broadcasting it. They’re also showing it as a ticker at the bottom of the screen, right?
Danny Funt: Exactly. You might hear Harry Enten on CNN talking about Kalshi odds related to the story he’s covering, while also seeing markets like who will be the first cabinet secretary ousted, or who will win Best Picture at the Academy Awards.
The idea seems to be to coax news viewers into visiting these platforms and placing bets. That makes sense for companies like Kalshi or its rival, Polymarket. But the news value for CNN or other outlets that have entered this business is a lot less clear.
Mina Kim: There’s also a financial incentive for CNN, right? Kalshi is paying CNN and other news networks to air their betting odds — not the other way around.
Danny Funt: That’s right. There’s an advertising upside. A big part of these deals involves exclusivity. In CNN’s case, they’ll only reference Kalshi. For Dow Jones properties like The Wall Street Journal or Barron’s, they’ll only reference Polymarket.
That’s curious, because if news organizations truly believe this information enhances coverage, tying their hands to a single source seems counterproductive. It would be like saying you could only cite Gallup polls in political coverage. That would clearly hurt journalism. So yes, broadcasting these odds has a clear advertising benefit for prediction markets.
Mina Kim: And you can also see why news networks — which have faced layoffs, financial pressure, and questions about their value — might find those contracts appealing.
Danny Funt: No doubt. Oliver Darcy, a former CNN media reporter who now writes a well-informed newsletter, has pointed this out. CNN has faced layoffs and pressure to cut costs and turn things around. In that position, it’s hard to stand on principle and say, “We don’t want to encourage gambling.”
This mirrors what happened with sports betting. As legalization exploded, many prestigious sports outlets were fighting for survival. Executives told me they’d long wanted nothing to do with gambling, but the money was too hard to turn away. I suspect the same thing will happen as more mainstream news outlets partner with prediction markets.
Mina Kim: And we’re talking with Danny Funt. I want to invite you, our listeners, to join the conversation. What do you think about prediction markets and betting on current events? What questions or concerns do you have?
You can email forum@kqed.org, or find us on Discord, Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram, or Threads at KQED Forum. You can also call us at 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786.
If you’ve placed a bet on an online prediction market — for sports, the news, or anything else — tell us about your experience.
Broadly speaking, what concerns have been raised about integrating prediction market odds into news coverage?
Danny Funt: There are quite a few. One is the surge in gambling problems across the country. The explosion of sports betting plays a big role in that. There are more and more easy ways to gamble, and when news outlets promote betting during coverage, that encourages it further.
It can also limit scrutiny. If a news outlet is taking advertising money from these companies, it becomes harder to report critically on their harms — something many sports journalists have told me they experienced once sports betting became a major revenue source.
Another issue is how prediction markets present themselves as financial products rather than gambling. That framing helps them exploit legal loopholes, including offering sports betting in places where it’s illegal. If news outlets are complicit in that reframing, that’s a real problem.
There’s also the issue of who’s betting. Insider trading is a serious concern. Someone with advance knowledge — or the ability to influence outcomes — can place a large bet and make substantial money. Imagine a government official betting on a law, court ruling, or military action. Worse still, imagine them influencing those outcomes. That’s a recipe for disaster.
It’s incredibly difficult for these companies to police insider activity, and regulators are going to have their hands full.
Mina Kim: And as you’ve suggested, it’s very easy to place a bet. We’re coming up on a break, but can you briefly explain how betting on the news works?
Danny Funt: On Kalshi, you’re betting with cash on a federally regulated exchange. It functions much like a traditional financial platform. In fact, Kalshi has partnered with Robinhood, and a lot of its trading volume now happens there.
Polymarket is crypto-based, but crypto has become mainstream enough that this doesn’t feel especially fringe anymore. The barriers to entry are very low.
Mina Kim: We’re talking about the explosion of prediction markets tied to current events — from tomorrow’s weather to whether President Trump might invade Greenland before the end of his term.
We’re joined by Danny Funt, journalist and author of Everybody Loses: The Tumultuous Rise of American Sports Gambling. We’re also hearing from you about how you feel about prediction markets, their integration with news coverage, and any questions or concerns you have.
Again, the number is 866-733-6786. Email forum@kqed.org, and find us on social media at KQED Forum.
More after the break. I’m Mina Kim.
