Business news is complicated, so mistakes happen. But there is no excuse for “fixing” the problem with an indecipherable correction.
That’s what happened after a late-December piece in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. A reporter rewrote a convoluted gambling-investigation story that had appeared a couple of days earlier in the Newark, New Jersey, Star-Ledger. In the course of describing the earlier story, about an on-going and ever-more-complicated investigation by New Jersey officials into a controversial MGM gambling partnership, the Vegas reporter got it all wrong. Then a pair of corrections published by the Review-Journal in late December and early January compounded the confusion.
Our main gripe here is with that pair of corrections. As far as the story itself goes: we don’t love rewrites, especially rewrites gone wrong. But the reporter has done solid work on shady gambling deals in the past, and presumably will continue to do so in the future. Yes, he made factual mistakes with this piece, but that alone would not have warranted our attention. Reporters make mistakes all the time in the pressures of daily journalism. But after reading the opaque correction, we still weren’t sure what the right story was. This is inexcusable.
A representative of the paper’s legal department refused to comment, so we’ll examine the correction on our own.
The news event here is another chapter in The Audit’s favorite gambling saga: New Jersey’s investigation into MGM’s casino partnership in Macau with international casino player Pansy Ho. The New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement has been investigating this partnership for three years, and the outcome will determine whether MGM gets a casino license for a $5 billion project in New Jersey. State officials there are attempting to discern whether Pansy Ho’s ties to her billionaire father, Stanley Ho—who is reported to have connections to organized crime—are strong enough to warrant a license denial to MGM.
This is the third time we have written about the New Jersey investigation, which seems to breed journalistic slip-ups.
The specific issue at hand involves a possible conflict-of-interest within the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement. Star-Ledger reporter Judy DeHaven wrote December 27 that:
The division has come under scrutiny because four of its investigators have been freelancing for a South Jersey casino consulting firm, Spectrum Gaming, which conducted its own investigation of the Hos and wrote a report detailing allegations of links between Stanley Ho and Chinese “triads” and raising questions about Pansy Ho’s independence from her father.
For those who aren’t familiar with the details of the story: DeHaven is essentially saying that the possible conflict of interest arose because investigators from the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement had been freelancing for a consulting firm that had previously written a report critical of Ho and her father. The nuances of DeHaven’s sentence become clear when we read its distortion in Review-Journal article headlined “Gaming officials built dossiers”:
New Jersey gaming investigators moonlighting for a consulting firm compiled the information for two explosive investigative dossiers leaked online earlier this year about MGM Mirage’s Macau business partner Pansy Ho and her father, Stanley Ho, a report from a New Jersey newspaper revealed this week.
The problem is that the Star-Ledger didn’t report this. It reported that New Jersey investigators freelanced for Spectrum, and that Spectrum had written a report on the Hos. The Review-Journal piece wrongly connected these two pieces of information, making the assumption that the New Jersey investigators had worked on the Spectrum report.
The New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement is indeed walking a fine line here, especially because Spectrum had compiled the critical report for a competitor of MGM, Las Vegas Sands. But here is what DeHaven wrote about that:
All four of the division investigators received written approval from their division director before accepting work from Spectrum, as required by state rules, said Peter Aseltine, spokesman for the attorney general. And the founder of Spectrum, Fred Gushin, a former assistant division director and former New Jersey assistant attorney general, said none of their work for his firm overlapped with their duties at the division, including the Macau investigation.