June 2008 Ethics Dunces

Sports Illustrated

Thanks to the protection afforded by First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, there are lots of vile books for sale in America. There are books that explain how to make bombs, get away with the perfect murder, commit adultery, stalk ex-lovers and hack into other people's computer data…and then there are the really vile books, that encourage conduct that makes those other books look like Easter egg hunt primers. The First Amendment's benefits far outweigh the drawbacks, but it would be helpful if the supposedly responsible publishers and writers in this country would at least acknowledge which kinds of literature are irresponsible, presuming they can tell. It seems clear that Sports Illustrated is one of the publications that can't tell, or can't be bothered. That is surprising. And sad.

SI recently decided to give a plug to a vile new book called "52 Ways to Cheat at Poker," in a perky review by Kostya Kennedy. The magazine has been at the forefront of exposing cheating in sports, and preaching the gospel that both sport and society is seriously threatened by the forces of dishonestly in our nation's games. And there has been a lot to preach about lately: steroids…the Patriots' head coach's repeated attempts to spy on opponents…an NBA ref caught shaving points, who now claims that the league's refs manipulate the scores of play-off games… allegations of match-fixing in pro tennis, and more. So how does the magazine describe a book designed to teach people how to win money illegally at cards? Like this: "Of course, reading these 192 pages won't make a cheat out of just anyone. You need supple hands, an excellent memory, a willingness to practice devotedly and…a "total absence of conscience or scruples." If you've got those qualities in spades---or even if you're just a low-ante poker player with a mischievous streak---this little book could actually change your life."

This is Kennedy's conclusion after previously describing the book as "entertaining," "clear," "plain-spoken," and "rarely dull," despite also observing (correctly) that the book's tepid attempts to justify itself as an aid to those trying to detect cheaters is so much balderdash. The sense of the review is that cheating is fun, cute, and clever, even if you're cheating friends, and even if you are cheating to win money, an activity that is also known as "robbery." SI's editors were obligated to consider the demographics of the magazine's readership, which contains a heavy component of students and teens, as well as the fact that, thanks to the similarly values-challenged ESPN's relentless exposure of poker tournaments, the popularity of poker-playing has exploded in high schools and on college campuses. The book and SI's endorsement of it are almost certain to increase the incidence of cheating by younger players, and to contribute to societal influences that make it increasingly unlikely that a teen can spell ethics, much less practice them. The magazine could have told Kennedy that his ethically empty review was inappropriate; better yet, it could have determined that reviewing the book at all was wrong.

But because it had a half page to fill, America's pre-eminent sports publication decided that it should give a big thumbs up to cheating at cards. And this from a magazine that every month picks an example of unethical or inappropriate behavior as a "Sign of the Apocalypse!"