I took that bit out. I only added it as an afterthought but without enough thought.

I like Crikey. I paid close attention to it right from its inception, I've known people who have written for it, I have subscribed to it at times. All I meant was it's not a mainstream outlet doing traditional reporting; it has always specialized in outsider, stir-things-up takes on issues. That's always been its reason for existing and it's a very important reason to exist.

Personally I think that sometimes it gets so wrapped up in hubris that it can be a bit holier than though and can be too willing to believe in conspiracies, because, hey, its business model is built in exposing things so it's kind-of inevitable. And I don't think it's "extremely reputable"; it's shamelessly provocative and appealing only to a particular segment of the market – that's by design.

But it's fine. I still like it and I didn't meant to trash it.

I'm a pragmatist and the Crikey story has a hanging shoe waiting to drop.

Who ultimately did fund the 36 months campaign?

If you're a skeptical fan of Crikey, like myself, perhaps you're also an eyebrow raised sometime watcher of Gruen and understand that the crowd Peter Carey once ran with don't do anything for nothing .. even the 'free' content is agency self promotion.

The money trail here runs cold in the vicinity of the sports betting lobby and there's form on their ability to run distraction not to mention the returns on 'grooming' gamblers via particular kinds of campaigns that work as well on young dumb adults as they do children.

There's been no follow up on gambling advertising and they're still free to run the kinds of ads they likely may have had to phase out if focus hadn't shifted to saving the children.

That seems a success worth paying for ... even if the receipts aren't out in the open.