Censorship on Bloodhorse

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

it's right here: http://www.bloodhorse.com/articleind...e.asp?id=36300

i read it last night, and had no trouble finding it just now.

Ha, awesome. It wasn't available fifteen minutes ago and they just got a bunch of angry e-mails from fans. The date posted is also changed from November 8th to November 9th. Glad to see they put it back up.

[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.

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.

[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?

[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.

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!

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

He's just glad to have a fan!

HAHA!!!

I thought that was a good article in all seriousness. He brought up some good points.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

He's just glad to have a fan!

I'm a fan of anyone that writes an article questioning how sporting the Sheikhs are or how good they are for the game. The one T Times article yesterday that praised the Sheikhs for being sporting by racing Invasor against Bernardini but neglected to mention them not racing Dubai Escapade or Discreet Cat or Ashkal Way made me want to puke.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

I'm a fan of anyone that writes an article questioning how sporting the Sheikhs are or how good they are for the game. The one T Times article yesterday that praised the Sheikhs for being sporting by racing Invasor against Bernardini but neglected to mention them not racing Dubai Escapade or Discreet Cat or Ashkal Way made me want to puke.

I couldn't agree more. I liked this piece by Haskin and he's a great guy.