Censorship on Bloodhorse

[SniperSB23]

Apparently Haskin was contacted via e-mail that the article was gone and contacted an online editor to get it back up. Perhaps it was just an on-line glitch that just happened to be in a negative article towards Darley rather than censorship.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Apparently Haskin was contacted via e-mail that the article was gone and contacted an online editor to get it back up. Perhaps it was just an on-line glitch that just happened to be in a negative article towards Darley rather than censorship.

You have a direct line to Haskin?

Trust me when I tell you the Blood-Horse doesn't censor. I know that first-hand.

However, several different people are responsible for posting stories to the website and sometimes things get moved around and links are dropped by mistake. The "time sensitive" thing is an auto response.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by redransom

Trust me when I tell you the Blood-Horse doesn't censor. I know that first-hand.

What does that mean?

They are certainly sensitive of many issues. Are you honestly suggesting they will print pretty much anything?

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

What does that mean?

They are certainly sensitive of many issues. Are you honestly suggesting they will print pretty much anything?

She's suggesting that she writes articles for the Blood-Horse (which she does.)

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

She's suggesting that she writes articles for the Blood-Horse (which she does.)

Are there any other questions you answer for her?

I don't particularly agree with her post whether she writes for them or not.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Are there any other questions you answer for her?

I don't particularly agree with her post whether she writes for them or not.

Nah... I've just read a few of her articles and figured that was what she was talking about.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

What does that mean?

They are certainly sensitive of many issues. Are you honestly suggesting they will print pretty much anything?

Um, what? I didn't think my comment needed to be clarified. But I will regardless....

If it's newsworthy and it steps on toes, even the biggest toes in the game, the BH will still print/publish it. As far as I'm concerned there's really no hard-nosed journalism in horseracing, but the BH isn't afraid to print anything and, so far in six years of working for them, they have. Whether it be editorials or whatever...

Now that's not to say some people's jobs aren't geared toward the less controversial. Haskin, for example, isn't a newswriter. He's a features writer and there's a different direction than someone who does mostly news.

But the BH is a publication owned by the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders' Association and, therefore, designed to promote the industry.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by redransom

Um, what? I didn't think my comment needed to be clarified. But I will regardless....

If it's newsworthy and it steps on toes, even the biggest toes in the game, the BH will still print/publish it. As far as I'm concerned there's really no hard-nosed journalism in horseracing, but the BH isn't afraid to print anything and, so far in six years of working for them, they have. Whether it be editorials or whatever...

Now that's not to say some people's jobs aren't geared toward the less controversial. Haskin, for example, isn't a newswriter. He's a features writer and there's a different direction than someone who does mostly news.

But the BH is a publication owned by the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders' Association and, therefore, designed to promote the industry.

I don't agree with the second paragraph....though I do agree about the lack of hard-nosed journalism in Racing ( over all ) and surely Ray has done a great job with the Jess Jackson story.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I don't agree with the second paragraph....though I do agree about the lack of hard-nosed journalism in Racing ( over all ) and surely Ray has done a great job with the Jess Jackson story.

Okay, that's the beauty of it all... not agreeing. And Ray has stepped on a lot of toes (as have several of his cohorts) in the name of doing the right thing and reporting as is. Think, for example, of the ethics in sales stuff and double commissions, Jockeys' Guild, California racing, NYRA, bogus horse ownership lawsuits, drug testing, etc. The BH has covered it all, objectively I believe. And many, many people came away angry. Mission accomplished? I dunno, but I think so...

I, unfortunately, have first hand experience with the BH stepping firmly on very large toes and me having to go back for more info. Not a terribly friendly situation often times.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by redransom

Trust me when I tell you the Blood-Horse doesn't censor. I know that first-hand.

However, several different people are responsible for posting stories to the website and sometimes things get moved around and links are dropped by mistake. The "time sensitive" thing is an auto response.

You better speak with Ray Paulick about that. He's the one that had the article pulled. Of course he's conveniently out of town for a convention.

[Revolution]

They have ever right to pull the article. They are not censoring his opinion, they are taking the article down because some of what he wrote is just not based on anything. In fact some of his statements were bizarre. Is this guy on the Coolmore payroll or something.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Revolution

They have ever right to pull the article. They are not censoring his opinion, they are taking the article down because some of what he wrote is just not based on anything. In fact some of his statements were bizarre. Is this guy on the Coolmore payroll or something.

If he's writing his own opinion, isn't he allowed to gather his opinion from wherever he wants? I read the article and I thought he had some good points. The chances of Bernardini reproducing himself are slim to none... I think that's pretty accurate, don't you?

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

If he's writing his own opinion, isn't he allowed to gather his opinion from wherever he wants? I read the article and I thought he had some good points. The chances of Bernardini reproducing himself are slim to none... I think that's pretty accurate, don't you?

You can have any opinion you want, but you can't just go saying things like the stallion is not likely to produce a great horse. He has no way of knowing that.

He could have said it is "unlikely" he would produce a great horse, but instead he said his chances were "slim to none" language that is not exactly professional.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Revolution

They have ever right to pull the article. They are not censoring his opinion, they are taking the article down because some of what he wrote is just not based on anything. In fact some of his statements were bizarre. Is this guy on the Coolmore payroll or something.

He said exactly what the majority of the people on here are thinking. There was nothing bizarre about anything written in the article. I'm sure if Coolmore had just retired Bernardini and Henny Hughes the same sentiments would have been directed towards them. This issue is way more racing fans vs Godolphin and Coolmore than it is Godolphin vs Coolmore.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

He said exactly what the majority of the people on here are thinking. There was nothing bizarre about anything written in the article. I'm sure if Coolmore had just retired Bernardini and Henny Hughes the same sentiments would have been directed towards them. This issue is way more racing fans vs Godolphin and Coolmore than it is Godolphin vs Coolmore.

i didn't get to read the article but IMO Coolmore doesn't seem to care much if they get bad press...they either ignore it or rebuke it, and then it goes away...the Maktoum's on the other hand get furious and threaten people the best way they know how--with money (or more accurately the loss of it)...thereby ensuring that no other negative items will be printed. They are so bent on appearing benevolent and sporting---while seeming to have no concept that their actions prove just the opposite.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

He said exactly what the majority of the people on here are thinking. There was nothing bizarre about anything written in the article. I'm sure if Coolmore had just retired Bernardini and Henny Hughes the same sentiments would have been directed towards them. This issue is way more racing fans vs Godolphin and Coolmore than it is Godolphin vs Coolmore.

Who cares what you say on a chat site. You don't have a magazine that employs people and needs advertising dollars. Maybe the editor just thought it was in poor taste. I did. I thought it sounded like a guy who didn't like a new power in racing. Much of the article read like a chat room, not an article for a top magazine.

I really think beyer wrote something and his publication slapped him around and then haskin did the same to prove some point. He got slapped around and now pricci is doing the same. These guys are really little fish in an ocean where Godolphin is the big shark.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

You better speak with Ray Paulick about that. He's the one that had the article pulled. Of course he's conveniently out of town for a convention.

Still not censorship. And his reasons for pulling it a right on, IMO.

Now if they want to publish it as a Final Turn, that's a different story altogether.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You have a direct line to Haskin?

No, but he does a very good job of responding to e-mails and responded to the e-mail that alerted him to the issue.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

No, but he does a very good job of responding to e-mails and responded to the e-mail that alerted him to the issue.

He's just glad to have a fan!