When we're talking about ads and media, I highly recommend reading the relevant chapter in Manufacturing Consent (PDF version can easily be found for free online).

But really, intuition will get you the raw basics: using the ad revenue model gives the advertiser control over a media outlet. If media truly 'need gambling ads', then this implies they cannot afford to lose them. So, they therefore cannot offend the gambling industry or especially the companies advertising with them. And therefore, they are pressured into media bias, into failing to be critical of an obviously harmful, corrupt industry dealing in addiction manufacture AND laundering at the same time!

Are these companies worth the suffering of vulnerable gamblers?

If you need to prey upon addiction to stay in business, then should you be in business?

Pathetic.

If keeping these companies running is so important to public interest, why aren't they receiving public funding rather than relying on money given to them by shady third parties with their own political interests?

I also fail to see how these particular networks owned by international multinational corporations are really any better than any other international multinational corporation like Meta. There is just as much misinformation on Channel 7, for example, as there is on Facebook, and the fact that often that misinformation is communicated as news, therefore making it seem more trustworthy, makes it a lot worse.

Maybe I'm dumb but couldn't other advertisers buy up those same slots instead? Gambling accounts may be big for the media companies but they're not the only ones out there

Otherwise they won’t be able to afford my bribes

~ Australian Ministers under their breath probably

That dude's forehead!