Prediction Markets Are Making a Mess of the Press That Covers Them
The prediction markets industry is outrunning the press that covers it. Plagiarism, ethics memos, and insider trading, and that was just in one week.
The prediction market industry produced four distinct media stories in the last week. A sports business outlet caught Sports Illustrated plagiarizing its original research using AI. The New York Times told its newsroom that participating in prediction markets is “a violation of our principles.” A data analytics firm published evidence of $2.4 million in suspected insider trading on Polymarket tied to U.S. military operations against Iran. And the same week, the analytics firm’s CEO argued that the very ability to publish that evidence is itself an argument for prediction markets.
Each story is interesting on its own. Together, they describe something more important. The press is in the middle of figuring out, in real time, how to cover a financial product that did not exist at scale eighteen months ago and that does not behave like anything its existing institutions know how to handle.
The Plagiarism Story Is the Symptom
The Sportico-Sports Illustrated story is the simplest of the four to describe. On May 13, Sportico published an original analysis showing that retail bettors had lost more than $100 million placing parlay bets on Kalshi in the first four months of 2026. The piece used data from Kalshi’s blockchain partner Dune, custom modeling of parlay hold rates, and original quotes from professional bettors and analysts. Two days later, Sports Illustrated published a piece under the byline of one Parker Loverich titled “Who is really winning on Kalshi parlays according to the data.”
The piece reused Sportico’s numbers, its framing, and its conclusions, while citing Sportico only once and only for a quote from an earlier article. Sportico editor Dan Bernstein called it on X. The Sports Illustrated piece was pulled, the byline was deleted, and the entire writer profile was scrubbed from the site within 24 hours. Minute Media, which licenses the Sports Illustrated brand, attributed the piece to an “independent publisher” and said it had cut ties.
The deeper story is what Sports Illustrated was doing in the first place. The brand has a dedicated prediction markets vertical because prediction markets are the only sports-adjacent story currently growing fast enough to justify net-new editorial real estate. The vertical was apparently being filled by a contractor who was running an AI workflow against a competitor’s original reporting. That is what coverage looks like when a topic outruns the publisher’s capacity to cover it honestly.
The Times Memo Is the Other Symptom
The New York Times memo to its newsroom, sent May 18 and reported by Nieman Lab the same day, said that betting on news events through prediction markets violates the paper’s principles. The Times has not historically needed a policy on this question because the question did not exist in this form. Reporters could not place legal bets on whether a specific Biden pardon would be issued, or on the date of a U.S. military strike, or on whether a particular candidate would win a primary. They can now. Polymarket and Kalshi run markets on all of those questions.
The Times memo is interesting less for what it prohibits than for what it implies. Newsroom ethics policies have always been about avoiding the appearance of financial interest in the subjects reporters cover. Stock ownership rules. Disclosure requirements. Recusals on companies a reporter’s spouse works for. Prediction markets render the existing rules incoherent because they are not about companies. They are about news itself. A reporter covering the White House can, in theory, bet on whether the administration will announce a policy the reporter happens to know is coming. The conflict is not adjacent to the work. The conflict is the work.
CNN, which has a content partnership with Kalshi, prohibits its editorial staff from participating in prediction markets for the same reason. The pattern is clear. Newsrooms are figuring out that the existing ethics framework was built for an information environment where journalists’ knowledge had no direct market price. Prediction markets put a price on it.
The Bubblemaps Argument Is Worth Taking Seriously
The Bubblemaps story is the most interesting of the four because it is the one the prediction markets industry would like the press to focus on. Bubblemaps, a Paris-based blockchain analytics firm, published evidence this month that nine connected Polymarket wallets had won approximately $2.4 million on bets tied to the timing of U.S. military strikes on Iran. The wallets had a 98 percent win rate on military-related markets. The same analysis was featured on 60 Minutes. Bubblemaps was also the firm behind the earlier reporting on suspicious wallets that profited on Biden’s late-term pardons.
The pro-industry counterargument, made by Bubblemaps CEO Nicolas Vaiman and echoed by Polymarket itself, is that none of these stories would have been reportable on a traditional financial exchange. Polymarket’s underlying transactions are on a public blockchain. Every bet is visible. Every wallet is traceable. The traders are anonymous, but their behavior is not.
Suspicious patterns can be identified by anyone with the analytical tools to look. That is, on its face, a real argument. The reason the press has been able to surface so many alleged insider trading cases on Polymarket is precisely that Polymarket runs on infrastructure designed for transparency. The same level of after-the-fact pattern analysis would be impossible on most regulated exchanges.
The Real Story Is Institutional
There is, however, a tension in the Bubblemaps argument that the industry tends to skip past. The transparency does not prevent insider trading. It documents it. The Department of Justice has filed charges against a U.S. soldier alleged to have used classified intelligence to bet on the Maduro operation. Kalshi has fined and suspended candidates for betting on their own elections. Multiple states have sued to ban prediction markets entirely. The transparency is doing what it is supposed to do. The institutional response has been slower.
That is the through-line for all four stories. Sportico did original reporting on a market dynamic that did not exist a year ago. Sports Illustrated did not have the institutional capacity to cover the same story honestly, so it ran a contractor with an AI tool. The New York Times spent the week publishing its own investigation and simultaneously realized it did not have a policy on its reporters participating in the thing they were investigating. Bubblemaps surfaced evidence of insider trading that regulators and platforms are still figuring out how to respond to. Each institution is one step behind. The market is the only thing moving at speed.
The press is going to have to catch up. The industry will have to decide whether transparency is enough on its own. Regulators will have to choose between the position that the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction and the position that prediction markets constitute gambling, subject to state law. None of that is happening yet. In the meantime, the stories keep coming, and the institutions covering them keep tripping over questions they did not know they would have to answer.
Players trust our reporting due to our commitment to unbiased and professional evaluations of the iGaming sector. We track hundreds of platforms and industry updates daily to ensure our news feed and leaderboards reflect the most recent market shifts. With nearly two decades of experience within iGaming, our team provides a wealth of expert knowledge. This long-standing expertise enables us to deliver thorough, reliable news and guidance to our readers.
Latest News
