Livestreamed executions—there's a bet for that

Support independent journalism by subscribing to The Handbasket. Upgrade to premium to keep this work going, or leave a tip. Many thanks.

I receive a lot of PR pitches, but very few of them make an impression. So I was surprised when one caught my eye this week with the subject line: “Hegseth future/pardon and execution livestream.” Curious, I opened it; what followed was a pitch conventional in structure, but chilling in content.

The world has become one giant casino where anyone can bet on almost anything from the toilet or at a baptism, and either have a lucky break or, more than likely, sink further into debt. You can bet on the innocuous, from who will win this season of Dancing with the Stars to when the US will confirm aliens exist, to more serious topics like how long the US-Iran ceasefire will last to who will be the next Supreme Court Justice. But learning that an online betting site was offering users the chance to earn money on the question “Will Fort Hood shooter execution be livestreamed?” signaled to me that we’ve reached a new level of depravity. And despite the fact that President Trump called off the livestream Thursday morning, it’s clear we as a society have become so inured to the idea of compulsive gambling that no topic is too taboo to openly wager on.

“Pete Hegseth is all pomp and fluff, at least according to the oddsmakers,” the pitch from the PR agency representing the site BetOnline began. “BetOnline doesn't think the idea Hegseth has floated to livestream the execution of the Fort Hood shooter will come to fruition. The below odds equate to a 40% implied probability of it happening.” 

The PR person wrote: “If you’re able to use this information in your content, please consider citing the source,” along with the current wagers on the execution livestream that, as of Tuesday evening when the email was sent, stood at Yes +150, No -200. I clicked on the link provided to see it with my own eyes, and there it was. 

I should note that I am not a gambler and have little to no familiarity with the world of online betting, other than the fact that sites like Polymarket and Kalshi are further perverting every major American institution from sports to politics and media. Earlier this year, Substack announced a partnership with Polymarket, which the latter company excitedly announced by posting “Journalism is better when it’s backed by live markets.” Dow Jones, publisher of the Wall Street Journal, has a similar arrangement. And Kalshi is in bed with CNN, CBS News and CNBC. Online betting odds are now regularly featured as a data point in news stories, often as a stand-in for polling and actual data. These odds placed by unserious people are treated as serious information presented by serious people.

Ubiquity aside, I still wondered if BetOnline had any moral qualms about its users betting on whether or not the execution of a human being by firing squad would be livestreamed, so I asked the PR person for comment. He sent me this response from Dave Mason, BetOnline’s Brand Manager:

At the direction of a friend who we’ll call a gambling enthusiast, I posed these follow-up questions to glean additional information: “What is the total handle on this market? What is the split by side on handle vs. tickets? Where is the money in terms of sharp vs. public? And are bettors limited in this market and if so what is the limit?” I won’t bore you with a gambling vocabulary lesson, but if you’re familiar with the lingo, perhaps these responses from BetOnline will mean something to you: “Less than five figures…82% of handle on NO. 74% of tickets on NO…96% of sharps on NO. 60% of public on NO…Wagering limit was $500.” By the time I got these responses, Trump had already announced the livestream was off, and the company commented “(market has been pulled btw).”

BetOnline’s response fascinated me because it conveyed a belief that they and similar sites have any role to play in the news cycle. It’s certainly up to each individual if they want to bet their own money on something, but it’s quite another to believe the proliferation of this practice is providing a public good. 

I was also struck by the non-answer: From Mason’s response, it seemed that no, the company did not have any moral qualms. It wasn’t necessarily surprising that the company who chose to publicize this wager in the first place would feel no regret, but watching them try to justify it added to the eeriness of a moment where the livestream of an execution was even made possible. And zooming out, I wondered if the whole point of the pitch was just to make news about the existence of the shocking wager itself, adding yet another level of depravity. How much are journalists being used as props by these betting sites to publicize their unseemly work and legitimize them as a political and cultural weather vanes?

Despite the decision to ultimately call off the livestreamed execution of former Army officer Nidal Hasan, it still became a gamified spectacle with little connection to the person on death row or his 13 victims; the wet dream of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and people like him who get pleasure out of violence. While it won’t be happening on December 3rd this year, the possibility of an execution livestream now tangibly exists. And if it comes up again, you can bet there will be a bet on it.