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]

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?

[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.

[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]

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.