1. 
   BJ Nemeth says:
   April 16th, 2009 at 2:09pm
   

   To sum up — “We haven’t announced anything, we don’t plan to announce anything, and there’s nothing we want to share.”

   Scott Longley needs to look up the definition of the word “denial,” because this ain’t it. This is a wordier version of “No comment.”

2. 
   DanM says:
   April 16th, 2009 at 2:14pm
   

   I agree … but don’t fault the writer for the ways of the hedline writer. They are seldom one in the same, and hedlines is often where the sensationalism comes in.

3. 
   BJ Nemeth says:
   April 16th, 2009 at 2:17pm
   

   Good point … except the part where you purposefully misspell the word “headline.”

4. 
   BJ Nemeth says:
   April 16th, 2009 at 2:20pm
   

   Oh wait, not such a good point. The opening line says, “Harrah’s has moved to deny rumours that …” I’d say that’s a misleading line.

   “Harrah’s has refused to comment on the rumors that …” may or may not be considered accurate, depending on how hard Harrah’s was pushed for a comment. (“Refused” is a pretty strong word.)

   To everyone but Dan: We’re only over-analyzing this tiny article because it was sent out before we recorded today’s episode of “The Poker Beat,” and if Harrah’s had, in fact, denied the rumors, that would have seriously impacted the show.

5. 
   DanM says:
   April 16th, 2009 at 2:28pm
   

   BJ, join the journo club and I will share with you the secrets of our code. Good stuff TK …

   ***Harrah’s has moved to deny rumours***

   They have moved to deny … meaning they are positioning themselves to deny, just in case?

6. 
   BJ Nemeth says:
   April 16th, 2009 at 2:29pm
   

   By that logic, you could just as easily have written, “Harrah’s has moved to confirm rumors …” Because they are clearly positioning themselves to confirm the basics of this story eventually.

7. 
   DanM says:
   April 16th, 2009 at 2:33pm
   

   How do you get that? I’m a little nervous that we could be totally off. Major news-ops do screw up every once in a while. I doubt it in this case regarding the relationship with Garber … but do leave open the possibility of the corporate set-up around him is off.

   But then why would the Sunday Times include that? They only had a tiny amount of space for it, after all. Of all the points that could be made, the writer had to make an original choice about which two or three to run with.

8. 
   BJ Nemeth says:
   April 16th, 2009 at 2:57pm
   

   I’m laughing because we’re commenting so much on an article that, on the surface, says so little. And most of our discussion hasn’t even been about the actual content of the story. 🙂

   One or two of the details could certainly be incorrect here. Perhaps it won’t be set up as a separate corporate entity. Perhaps it’s not Garber, but somebody with a similar background. Perhaps the WSOP will be kept separate from this new venture until online poker is legalized in the U.S.

   But if there was no truth at all to this deal, then I think Harrah’s would openly deny it in clear language, because it is the kind of rumor that could affect their stock price, etc.

   Actual denials don’t sound like this. It would have said something like “These rumors are completely unfounded,” or “We have no idea how this rumor got started,” or “Harrah’s is often in talks with potential WSOP sponsors, and this was misinterpreted.”

   *Something* must have sparked the Times Online to report this, because the original story wasn’t written in a way merely to inflame people and attract hits to a website. The original story was downplayed about as much as possible, so it doesn’t strike me as sensationalism. (It would be different if we first heard about this in a passionate post on a poker blog, for example.)

9. 
   DanM says:
   April 16th, 2009 at 2:59pm
   

   ***it is the kind of rumor that could affect their stock price, etc. ***

   Just to be clear — and I’ve made this mistake recently, too — Harrah’s is now a private company. So stock price theoretically isn’t an issue.

10. 
    BJ Nemeth says:
    April 16th, 2009 at 3:07pm
    

    I knew there was a reason I felt like an idiot as I wrote that. 🙂

    I still see only four possible reactions to this rumor from Harrah’s: Silence, No Comment, Clear Denial, and Announcement. Their wordy “No Comment” leads me to believe it’s closer to “Announcement” than “Clear Denial.” If they wanted a “No Comment” that was closer to “Clear Denial,” they could have simply said, “It is Harrah’s corporate policy not to comment on rumors,” or, the oldie but goodie — “No comment.”

    The more words they use to say “No comment” without saying anything makes it more likely (in my mind) that the rumors are true.

• About Us
• Contact Us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Advertise
• Sitemap

Copyright 2004-2017 Pokerati.com, LLC