NY Times opinion

[Cannon Shell]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24sat3.html


As usual the NYT seems to have no clue about what is really going on...

Are they suggesting that the city just close up shop and get out of the gambling business?

[blackthroatedwind]

The NY Times is so woefully disappointing that I wouldn't even know where to begin. Here's an idea Chuck.....you and I can offer to run a new OTB system once Bloomberg declares the City no longer wants to do it. I have a feeling we can find a way to make a few sheckles.....maybe even as much as the city currently makes.

It is shocking how little understanding of the issue that editorial displays and it makes one wonder how many inept editorials they run. Imagine if we understood all topics half as well as we know this one. I get the feeling that we could shred one piece after another. And, I say this as a lifetime liberal, who spent my life reading the NY Times. Editorials like this are as disappointing as they are angering.

[pmacdaddy]

What a piece of garbage. Talk about missing the boat...

[Rudeboyelvis]

It's an opinion piece...They sell newspapers to stay alive. It is as close to an invitation to offer the contrarian perspective, preferably backed up with facts, that we get. I'm not nearly as close to the situation as you guys, but perhaps a well written, non-accusatory rebuttle would serve the industry well.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

It's an opinion piece...They sell newspapers to stay alive. It is as close to an invitation to offer the contrarian perspective, preferably backed up with facts, that we get. I'm not nearly as close to the situation as you guys, but perhaps a well written, non-accusatory rebuttle would serve the industry well.

It is seemingly an uninformed opinion. That is stunning considering how big of an issue this has been especially in light of the political war that has erupted with horseracing in the middle. As Andy said, if they are as misinformed or as the NYTimes usually is, above this, then why should you listen to their opinion on other subjects that you may not be as informed about? It is about creditability and this OPed seems to lack a basic understanding of the situation therefore they lose creditability in the eyes of many.

[blackthroatedwind]

Honestly the more I think about it the more amazing it becomes. The writer is like a guy who chases a dollar bill on a string.....every day for a month in front of the same house. How he could completely miss what Bloomburg is actually doing almost defies belief. It really makes you wonder.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

It's an opinion piece...They sell newspapers to stay alive. It is as close to an invitation to offer the contrarian perspective, preferably backed up with facts, that we get. I'm not nearly as close to the situation as you guys, but perhaps a well written, non-accusatory rebuttle would serve the industry well.

Steve Crist did this eloquently last week in the DRF. Anything else would be redundant.

The simple fact is that the author of this piece has absolutely no idea whatsoever about what he's talking about. It reminds me of the old Seinfeld episode when George is in a book club and has to read " Breakfast at Tiffanys. " Because he's lazy he watches the movie.....and doesn't realize the main character is gay.

[Rudeboyelvis]

I understand...but I guess my point is that as fans of the sport, sometime we may be called upon to be stewards of the sport. Steve's piece in the DRF was exactly what needs to be out in the mainstream - unfortunately with the circulation of the DRF, especially in the on-line era where most folks don't take the time to even read the front page - the real message gets lost...not trying to sound naive, and certainly not trying to put the onus on others (ok, that's disingenuious...apparently I am) , but a mainstream rebuttal, back up with facts, might help to stem the tide and perhaps even moblilize folks that don't give a rat's asz about racing to take a second look at how badly that their state government has disserviced them.

[docicu3]

"These bleak establishments rake in $1 billion a year, but little of it stays in the city. The state and the racing industry siphon off most of the revenue from these gambling relics. So when Mr. Bloomberg heard that the off-track parlors would need city money to survive, he rightly offered to help turn out the lights."

Is there an easy reference for the real numbers here? Does this takeout money get recycled throughout the state rather than NYC so this is misleading as hell?

[pmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by docicu3

"These bleak establishments rake in $1 billion a year, but little of it stays in the city. The state and the racing industry siphon off most of the revenue from these gambling relics. So when Mr. Bloomberg heard that the off-track parlors would need city money to survive, he rightly offered to help turn out the lights."

Is there an easy reference for the real numbers here? Does this takeout money get recycled throughout the state rather than NYC so this is misleading as hell?

$1B is the Gross Handle.

If that article was the first piece I read on the topic, I would walk away thinking "NYC residents piss away $1B a year at OTB and the City does not see a net dime of that."

Not exactly the information to enlighten people as to political tug of war and structural issues surrounding the NY racing model right now...

Steve linked a few DRF articles on the other NYC OTB thread that pretty much hit the nail on the head redarding the money trail and areas for imrpovement in the system. Unfortunately this likely reaches a much larger audience in the NYT.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Steve Crist did this eloquently last week in the DRF. Anything else would be redundant.

The simple fact is that the author of this piece has absolutely no idea whatsoever about what he's talking about. It reminds me of the old Seinfeld episode when George is in a book club and has to read " Breakfast at Tiffanys. " Because he's lazy he watches the movie.....and doesn't realize the main character is gay.

I echo Rudeboyelvis in that most people don't read the DRF. I had the same thought- if you or Chuck, or anyone who has an actual grasp on the situation could take time to write a retort, even as a letter to the editor, it would be a good thing. I don't claim to fully understand the situation (other than noticing every anti-NYRA article doesn't ever mention the management has changed) and I can see how an average reader would think, "Well, if the city isn't getting any $$ from the OTBs, why should the city be expected to kick in any $$ to keep them running?

I know you guys are busy, but if you have the time, it would be great if someone who understands the situation could write a retort. Opinion is just that, opinion, and I don't expect an unbiased editorial. But it should be backed up with facts, and if it isn't, the author should be held accountable. The last thing the Times needs is to have an editorial page like the WSJ's.

And that was a hilarious Seinfeld. I'd forgotten about it.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by docicu3

Is there an easy reference for the real numbers here? Does this takeout money get recycled throughout the state rather than NYC so this is misleading as hell?

I'll get the numbers in terms of where NYC-OTB's state-destined revenue goes, but here's a reminder from Matt Hegarty as to what the real situation is:

Bloomberg and OTB officials like to cite the company's deficit at the end of the past four fiscal years. But those deficits do not include the city's share of the surcharge that OTB collects from some customers on winning bets, which actually gives the city a net gain on the OTB operation.

In 2006, the latest year for which complete financial figures are publicly available, the city OTB had a deficit of approximately $6 million. The city, however, took a dividend on the surcharge revenues of $17.4 million in the same year. So the city had a net gain of more than $11 million from OTB operations in the 2006 fiscal year.

Officials in the Bloomberg administration and city OTB confirmed that the surcharge revenue is taken as an expense on the company's financial statements, as did officials at the New York State Racing and Wagering Board.

The officials, who spoke on a condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the financial statements publicly, maintained that because the company cannot make a profit on its wagering revenues - each $1 bet loses roughly 0.7 cents - the long-term prognosis is that taxpayers eventually will have to subsidize the operation under the present statutory requirements.

And remember that the bleeding NYC OTB is experiencing is largely of their own making... Bloomberg's approach to this comes straight out of the Empire-Capital Play franchise attack handbook. Disgusting. And as has been said by Andy, Chuck, et all, the Times' approach in Editorial is a further obfuscation of the salient issues. And their initial reporting of this story was wrong-headed and inaccurate to begin with as well.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I echo Rudeboyelvis in that most people don't read the DRF. I had the same thought- if you or Chuck, or anyone who has an actual grasp on the situation could take time to write a retort, even as a letter to the editor, it would be a good thing. I don't claim to fully understand the situation (other than noticing every anti-NYRA article doesn't ever mention the management has changed) and I can see how an average reader would think, "Well, if the city isn't getting any $$ from the OTBs, why should the city be expected to kick in any $$ to keep them running?

I know you guys are busy, but if you have the time, it would be great if someone who understands the situation could write a retort. Opinion is just that, opinion, and I don't expect an unbiased editorial. But it should be backed up with facts, and if it isn't, the author should be held accountable. The last thing the Times needs is to have an editorial page like the WSJ's.

And that was a hilarious Seinfeld. I'd forgotten about it.

Yeah I hate it when facts and common sense get in the way of editorial opinions...
Actually there is a big difference in writng a retort and them actually publishing it. The opinion of people who read the NYT is probably close to meaningless in this whole mess but I find it interesting that they seemingly miss Bloombergs intentions and seem to have little grasp of the entire situation. To say that they wrote in this manner to try to garner retorts seems a bit far fetched. Personally I believe that a NYT oped writer probably believes themselves far too intellectual to bother educating themselves in matters that dont further the cause of the left.

[blackthroatedwind]

It's really not about being left wing, Chuck, it's just about doing a shoddy job of reporting. The most left wing person I have ever known has been disgusted with their reporting ( and very much favors the WSJ ) for many years.

However, as you said, they aren't looking for a response. They are very simply dramatically misstating facts and butchering the interpretation of this story. This editorial is a woefully incompetent rendering of the situation. However, no NYC paper has made any attempt to understand anything about the current racing situation, and the reporting has reflected that.

One other thing.....by the logic of the author of this article, every bar in NY should also be closed, as surely many more rent dollars are spent there and many more lives are also wasted and ruined by alcohol. Who knew the NY Times was an advocate of bringing back Prohibition. It is, however, good to know.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

It's really not about being left wing, Chuck, it's just about doing a shoddy job of reporting. The most left wing person I have ever known has been disgusted with their reporting ( and very much favors the WSJ ) for many years.

However, as you said, they aren't looking for a response. They are very simply dramatically misstating facts and butchering the interpretation of this story. This editorial is a woefully incompetent rendering of the situation. However, no NYC paper has made any attempt to understand anything about the current racing situation, and the reporting has reflected that.

One other thing.....by the logic of the author of this article, every bar in NY should also be closed, as surely many more rent dollars are spent there and many more lives are also wasted and ruined by alcohol. Who knew the NY Times was an advocate of bringing back Prohibition. It is, however, good to know.

Isn't the morality of gambling argument a little stale in 2007 considering state of our society?

[geeker2]

When you see things like this in print..it always makes me wonder..... if they got this all wrong ...what else are they printing that is wrong...

Maybe Elvis is still alive.....and living in Chuck's barn.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Isn't the morality of gambling argument a little stale in 2007 considering state of our society?

Well of course.

But, with the lottery doing so much, for so many, it's a wonder gambling ( and really all vices ) aren't promoted even more.

[pick4]

The editorial writers of the Times were not the only ones who fail to fully understand this issue.

The Daily News has their say: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...int=1&page=all

as does the New York Post:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11162007...ase_118440.htm

[blackthroatedwind]

Compared to the Times piece those responses are pure genius. At least they understand the situation a bit better.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Isn't the morality of gambling argument a little stale in 2007 considering state of our society?

uh yeah, especially when casinos, lotteries and poker are celebrated as mainstays of society.