If that's all you're taking from it, you're completely missing the real points:

The basic premise of the headline is already incredibly flawed. It suggests gambling is the "favorite passtime" becase that's where most noney was spent. Is that true for you? It sure isn't for me... I have more hobbies than I have time for, some are cheap/free, some cost money, some cost more money, but the money they cost isn't correlated with how fun they are or my appreciation for them.

Secondly, even if money spent on something would represent peoples "rankings" of them somehow, go try and spend 1000$ on museums. I sure this is different from country to country, but most museums here are either free or "cheap", no matter how long you stay, and will entertain you for hours or a day for whatever that small fee was. Even if you did have the time, how many weeks or even months would it take you to use up the 1000$? Even movies, assuming it mostly means going to a cinema is less cheap, but far from expensive per time spent there, too. Even including popcorn or snacks, breaking 50$ for a single movie is gonna be a stretch, so how long for 1000$? Music could mean concerts, which can be hundreds of dollars in some cases for a concert, but those don't even happen daily. Could also mean digital streaming, but that's like capped at let's call it 20$ per month. Buying digital albums/music is not capped like that, but assuming you are buying them to actually listen to it, you're again limited by time.

The point is the whole comparison is grotesque: Money spent on gambling is unlimited. I can spend 1000$ right now on some online poker chips, or betting on horses, or whatever else with absolutely no issues. The amount per time unit is only limited by how much you have (and/or your credit). All other mentioned examples are limited by your time or rather the money you can spend on them for per hour you enjoy them. Don't you think that basic fact might somewhat skew the comparison?