RawVegas.tv "interview" with Russ Hamilton - Page 3

turtlepig · #21 (**permalink**) 02-07-2009, 11:27 AM

If I'm reading all thiis correctly, then BJ Nemeth is a pathetic excuse for a reporter. He sounds more like an apologist for Layne Flack and Russ Hamilton. Innocent until proven guilty huh?

Well who's job is it to prove someone GUILTY in this crazy online poker world of ours? There ARE no authorities with any jurisdiction. All we have are each other. If we can't close ranks and shun people who steal MILLIONS...

BJ, you should change your little subtitle to "official mouthpiece for looking the other way." Reporter you ain't.

Lon VanPatten · #22 (**permalink**) 02-07-2009, 11:53 AM

The Kahnawake Gaming Commission said that Hamilton was the main person behind the Ultimate Bet scandal. Why they haven't appeared to make any effort to forward this information to the proper authorities is a question to ask them. There's plenty of bigger fish to fry than BJ if you're going to drop the "apologist" tag on someone.

turtlepig · #23 (**permalink**) 02-07-2009, 12:27 PM

I certainly wouldn't "fry" Mr. Nemeth - what did HE steal? All I did was question his bona fides as a reporter and his judgement as a member of the online poker community.

But let's not pretend the Kahnawakiwikiwakiwoki "Gaming Commission" is the LEAST bit a legitimate enterprise, and that poblem is hardly isolated to UB and AP. Both Stars and Tilt "rely" on cover provided by those frauds as well. Do YOU think we're being well served by them? I would drop THEM into the fryer right along with Hamilton.

And as far as "asking them" is concerned (the Kahnawakes), don't think I haven't. I sent them a letter many months ago asking for an explanation. Their response? Silence.

I also asked both Stars and Tilt to explain the benefit that commission provides them. Their answers were PATHETIC. It's 100% about appearances and 0% about legitimacy.

BJ Nemeth · #24 (**permalink**) 02-07-2009, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtlepig

If I'm reading all thiis correctly, then BJ Nemeth is a pathetic excuse for a reporter. He sounds more like an apologist for Layne Flack and Russ Hamilton. Innocent until proven guilty huh?

Well who's job is it to prove someone GUILTY in this crazy online poker world of ours? There ARE no authorities with any jurisdiction. All we have are each other. If we can't close ranks and shun people who steal MILLIONS...

BJ, you should change your little subtitle to "official mouthpiece for looking the other way." Reporter you ain't.

When did I apologize for what Russ Hamilton allegedly did? And what, exactly, do you think Layne Flack is guilty of?

On this topic, no, I am not a reporter. I have no inside sources or avenues/funds to conduct an investigation. On this topic, I am a news analyst providing commentary.

turtlepig · #25 (**permalink**) 02-07-2009, 01:27 PM

Layne Flack is guilty of extremely poor JUDGEMENT. Hamilton should be completely ostracized. If my "friend" stole millions of dollars from innocent people, he would no longer be my friend.

As for which "hat" you're choosing to wear today (not reporter, as your tagline boasts, but "news analyst") - it makes little difference. You're WAY off base on both your defense of Flack and your suggestion that the Hamilton video was not "newsworthy."

BJ Nemeth · #26 (**permalink**) 02-07-2009, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtlepig

Layne Flack is guilty of extremely poor JUDGEMENT. Hamilton should be completely ostracized. If my "friend" stole millions of dollars from innocent people, he would no longer be my friend.

As for which "hat" you're choosing to wear today (not reporter, as your tagline boasts, but "news analyst") - it makes little difference. You're WAY off base on both your defense of Flack and your suggestion that the Hamilton video was not "newsworthy."

I'll agree that Layne Flack may have shown poor judgment in publicly hanging out with Russ Hamilton during this period, but I don't personally fault him for it. This is professional degenerate Layne Flack we're talking about, not a politician or a religious figure.

There are different types of reporters who fulfill very different roles in the journalistic community. My primary reporting is done from the high-stakes tournament trail, on the "sport" side of things. I don't do investigative reporting into legal or online matters. That's where I become a news analyst.

If you would like to give me a large grant to conduct an investigation, I would be *very* happy to do it. (Contact "60 Minutes" and find out what their budget was for this story. It ain't cheap.)

Or, if you don't trust me, I could give you the names of some excellent poker reporters with more experience on the investigative side of things. They'd love to be paid to look into this mess. But reporters need to eat and pay the rent just like everyone else.

For the record, the first factor in determining whether something is newsworthy is timeliness. It's the "new" in "newsworthy."

If this video had come out when the report was first released naming Russ Hamilton, it would have been *very* newsworthy. At that time, several media outlets tried to get comments from Hamilton, with no success -- it was clear he wasn't talking. RawVegas tried again last week, which is fine. But they had no success either. All they had was a video camera.

TeddyKGB · #27 (**permalink**) 02-07-2009, 04:52 PM

If this video had come out when the report was first released naming Russ Hamilton, it would have been *very* newsworthy. At that time, several media outlets tried to get comments from Hamilton, with no success -- it was clear he wasn't talking. RawVegas tried again last week, which is fine. But they had no success either. All they had was a video camera.
B.J. Nemeth

But thats just it Mr. Nemeth, its the fact that when the scandal broke Russ and his lawyer stated that all will be revealed, and that he wasnt directly guilty of cheating. This is not what has gone on, and the basic silence from Russ has continued. This video is a reminder that Hamilton has not yet delivered on his promise to explain his involvement, and I think that's newsworthy.

It may true that Russ didn't cheat, and that he was only tangentially involved, but with each day that passess and his silence continues, the feeling in the poker community continues to be that he has largely gotten away with cheating, and that he is hoping the scandal will blow over.

I would be willing to listen to anything he says, but until that day I take a very dim view of him living the good life while many employees of ub and absolute are out looking for work. Also, in more general sense, this scandal really hurts online poker at a sensitive time and the continued fear of cheating can not be addressed until all the facts are out, and that hurts all of us who like to play online by giving credit to the idea that this is a shadowy unregulated world that the average player should avoid; The fact that he hasn't defended or explained himself will be relevant until the day he does so in my mind.

BJ Nemeth · #28 (**permalink**) 02-07-2009, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tddykgb8

This video is a reminder that Hamilton has not yet delivered on his promise to explain his involvement, and I think that's newsworthy.

Your key word is "reminder." Yes, this video reminds us of the ongoing Russ Hamilton situation, and his silence. And it sparked a larger discussion, which we are now a part of. But it hasn't added anything to the discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tddykgb8

I would be willing to listen to anything he says, but until that day I take a very dim view of him living the good life while many employees of ub and absolute are out looking for work.

I would also be willing to listen to anything Russ Hamilton says. Because *that* would likely be newsworthy. I shouldn't have to state this, but I'm also annoyed that he's not under intense legal investigation after being named in the report as responsible for the UB cheating scandal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tddykgb8

The fact that he hasn't defended or explained himself will be relevant until the day he does so in my mind.

Relevant, yes. Newsworthy, no.

Is it relevant that Osama Bin Laden ordered the attacks on 9/11? Absolutely. Is it newsworthy today? Absolutely not.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'm also curious how people are interpreting my statements to be some kind of defense of Russ Hamilton. (They aren't.) Or how I have claimed that this cheating scandal isn't important. (It is.)

I would probably be writing a comprehensive article on the entire Russ Hamilton/UB story this weekend if it weren't for Wicked Chops' teaser that they have additional information that they plan to release in a few days.

If I were to write such an article, it wouldn't be newsworthy, because it would just be a compilation of data that we already knew, without any new information. But it would still be journalism, because it would be a fresh look at the entire situation, filling in a lot of background information for people who may have missed it the first time around.

TeddyKGB · #29 (**permalink**) 02-07-2009, 08:48 PM

Relevant, yes. Newsworthy, no.

Is it relevant that Osama Bin Laden ordered the attacks on 9/11? Absolutely. Is it newsworthy today? Absolutely not.

BJ Nemeth

analogies are dangerous things. the fact that Bid Laden was behind the terrorist attacks is not news, but the fact that he has not as of yet been brought to justice is very much newsworthy. you can not win this, you should concede with honor.

BJ Nemeth · #30 (**permalink**) 02-07-2009, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tddykgb8

analogies are dangerous things. the fact that Bid Laden was behind the terrorist attacks is not news, but the fact that he has not as of yet been brought to justice is very much newsworthy. you can not win this, you should concede with honor.

Show me any news website, newspaper, or TV news show that has a current headline along the lines of "Bin Laden Has Yet To Be Captured." (Commentary and analysis segments don't count.) It is a fact that will be mentioned in other news stories (just like Russ Hamilton's "no comment" should be mentioned in any article about this scandal), but that fact isn't, in and of itself, newsworthy today.

As many arguments do, this one has devolved into semantics. There is a dictionary definition of "newsworthy," which is basically anything that appears in the news.

But there is also a journalistic definition of newsworthiness, one that editors in every medium consider when deciding whether and how to report on a story. Several factors are considered (depending on the source), but one of the primary factors is always timeliness.

A few links:

"Twelve Factors in Newsworthiness"
http://www.cybercollege.com/newscrit.htm

"Newsworthiness: The Traditional Version"
http://www.nowpublic.com/newsroom/ti...tional_version

"News Worthiness"
http://library.thinkquest.org/18806/...wsworthy.shtml

I'm willing to accept that we disagree on the term "newsworthy."