There was some general anxiety in the sports betting space that 60 Minutes was about to do a hatchet job on the industry Sunday night.

Well, those concerns proved to be … empty-ish? The piece was generally ho-hum, didn’t break any news, and 100% buried the lede in favor of light sensationalism. Probably worth a bit of a breakdown here.

The first set piece is reporter Jon Wertheim talking with three dudes who like to bet on sports. They’re all friends, in their 20s, former hockey players, at a bar, and they’re drinking beer, eating wings, and there looks to be a cheeseburger and fries on the table as well.

It’s revealed that one of them just bet $8.

At this point in the story, not only could Wertheim go on about sports betting, but he could’ve pivoted and done a story on (choose one) unhealthy eating habits, alcohol addiction, and, sure, why not, toxic masculinity. But nope. This is a “sports betting is evil” story so let’s move away from these three guys betting what amounts to loose change found in their Hondas to some guy with a massive addiction problem.

(But first, and I can’t let this pass: Wertheim notes “even ESPN has its own sportsbook.” Well, not really. They signed a licensing agreement with PENN Entertainment, which runs the ESPN BET-branded platform. It’s not like ESPN is taking bets. Or setting lines. Or has anything to do with the sportsbook, outside of lending its name to it. OK. I feel better now.)

Let’s meet the one person in this story with an actual problem who has not parlayed his recovery into a second career.

It’s some twenty-something guy from New York who bet a lot. No mention of how much he bet, how much he lost, just that he bet often. Was he betting $5? Or $50? Or $500? Or $5,000? 

“I’d place a bet anything, anywhere, at any time,” the guy said. 

I mean, sure. Me too. But for some this becomes a problem. (Not for me, though) Fair. Reasonable. OK. Not exactly Earth-shattering news.

It’s also noted he gave up his smartphone for a flip phone in an effort to curb his betting. Wow, right?

Next up is Harry Levant, who is a certified gambling counselor and mental health therapist. Also mentioned: He’s a former lawyer who was disbarred for stealing client money to bet with. Not mentioned: He was convicted on 13 counts of theft.

Levant’s position on sports betting, as he recounted to me last year: He believes the industry should be regulated like the tobacco industry and told me he sees the “responsible gaming” model with the “industry saying we can police ourselves” as equal to the “Sackler family with opioids.”

But he didn’t talk about that on 60 Minutes. He talked about how dangerous gambling is, how the sports betting apps have all kinds of data on gamblers, how you can’t beat the book.

“This is a public health emergency happening and we’re not talking about it yet,” Levant said.

Later, Wertheim was talking to a gambling counselor in the UK who agrees with Levant. They were discussing the amount of data sportsbooks have on bettors, and how sportsbooks use this data to keep bettors “in action.”

“These gambling companies that know when we’re most impetuous, have reams and reams of data on us,” Wertheim said. “What kind of match is that for the adolescent male?”

Yeah, so, not to nitpick here, but this is an important point, as “adolescent” is defined by the World Health Organization as people between the ages of 10-19. 

Fact check: The gambling companies have zero reams of data on this cohort, as they are not allowed to bet. In most U.S. jurisdictions, the legal betting age is 21. (Yes, there are a handful of states where the legal age is 18, I’ll nitpick myself.)

From here, Bill Miller of the American Gaming Association talks about gambling addiction and says that he doesn’t think there’s a difference between being addicted to mobile gambling compared with being addicted to scrolling through social media, so … point to the anti-gambling folks there! Come on Bill. Walked right into that one.

It all ends with Levant hanging out with lawyers Dick Daynard and Marc Gottlieb, who are starting to sue the sportsbooks for deceptive advertising. Their goal is to get federal oversight on gambling ads and rules as to how sportsbooks promote themselves. Much like the tobacco industry, which Daynard successfully battled.

Um … OK? I mean, outside of the true Libertarians out there, would anyone really be against some uniform rules and regulations surrounding sports betting ads? About how sportsbooks promote themselves? I’m fine with that. And – speaking as a journalist – if that’s the main thrust of the piece, why wait until the very end to bring it up? 

If I were a journalism professor – which I am, by the way, hold your applause – I’d send this back for a rewrite. The lede should be about how advertising rules surrounding sports betting are entirely too loosey-goosey and go from there. The lede shouldn’t have been the three guys who are going to need a cardiac catheterization in 30 years.

Should there be a discussion about gambling advertising? Yeah, I think so. Was this it? Absolutely not.

Tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick.