NY Times is a Source of Disinformation

As chief journalistic representative of a culture that supposedly has a love of diversity- the NY Times does a great job of proving otherwise. While the talking class drones on about a love of diversity- the esoteric truth is that this culture from top to bottom is racing towards homogeneity. The NY Times racing coverage affirms this truth. Niche sports like racing doesn't have any room in New York according to the Times "It is hard to shake a feeling that Aqueduct’s precious 192 acres in South Ozone Park, Queens, might be put to better use, perhaps for parks or for reasonably priced housing, which goodness knows the city sorely needs. " When the Times and the cultural masters are done manipulating opinions this world will be a one trick pony- horse racing will not be providing the pony.

While most can agree with that opinion that aqueduct is not a venue enjoyed by all the Times really goes off the rails when it becomes a medium for disinformation. "With the failed bookie operation known as the New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation forced to shut its doors, the numbers of horse players trooping to Aqueduct racetrack have swelled." NYCOTB was never a bookie operation, it was a parimutuel outlet- this is a huge difference in complexity and the nature of the operation.

If the New York Times is going to send a reporter to Aqueduct-- shouldn't he be informed? Why report these facts while taking them totally and completely out of context. OTB operated as a political patronage mill and was filled with inefficiency and mismanagement. OTB often acted against ( banning streaming in-home video for example) the best interest of the product. It was the fact that government corruption and ineptitude killed OTB; not the lack of appeal from the racing product. This is not clear in the piece as shows how reporting misinforms rather that informs.

While I have to agree that Aqueduct certainly is not an ascetically appealing new construction palace- I contend that Aqueduct holds a different type of charm. Certainly in this world there are diverse experiences and tastes- especially in New York. Aqueduct is a remnant of old working class New York- like an old pair of jeans that are the most comfortable, rugged and familiar article of clothes in your wardrobe. Everything in the wardrobe can not be a new suit. Must we steamroll/cleanse everything in this culture for the sake of homogeneity? Do we really need to demolish Aqueduct to make way for yet another Wal-Mart or Starbucks or Wal-Mart or Starbucks? Do we need to raid the taxpayers for billions to construct new stadiums -three here in the NYC area just the last two years- so the masses can consume more ball games and only ball games. Does every sport have to be a TV show masquerading as a team sport? If it doesn't fit the narrow mold of Mr. Haberman's world it must be demolished. This is the cultural homogeneity that the NY times silently yet ubiquitously promotes. The worldview is narrow and it is the cultural equivalent of rainforest slash and burn farming. The old is neglected and new turf is constantly slashed and burned to provide the fresh newly built experience that is requisite for "bucolic retreats"

Disinformation and cultural provincialism is not enough to drive the point home for the Times. They have to supplement this with the old stereotype. This is the old "punter as loser" stereotype that constantly appears in the press and by extension in the culture at large. The Times is very careful not stereotype most ethnic groups and certainly does not stereotype ballgame fans as braindead TV watching dolts. Why does the horseplayer always have to be stereotyped as a loser over and over.

I can’t look at horses anymore — there’s no fun,” said Michael Partridge, 69. He regularly added money to his account, but never withdrew. “I got the pleasure of it,” he said. “To handicap horses every night.”

More lackadaisical journalism from the times. There are winners at handicapping and some very sharp handicappers. This can not be read about in the New York Times. For them it is just easier to stereotype the entire group as losers and idiots. I guess if the goal is to demolish racing and get rid of all horse racing from the sports pages it is intellectually convenient to paint them with a broad brush as losers. This way when they are removed from the landscape the cultural guilt will be minimized.


This quote really highlights the poor understanding Mr. Haberman has of twentieth first century parimutuel operations:

The New York Racing Association, which operates the Aqueduct, Belmont and Saratoga tracks, has begun busing displaced OTB devotees to South Ozone Park. But even with higher attendance figures as a result, the amount bet at the track — the handle, in racing parlance — remains a small fraction of the overall wagering.

On Saturday, for example, the handle from all betting sources for races run at Aqueduct was nearly $8.8 million. At the track itself, in relatively mild weather, the handle came to just over $1 million. That ratio of about nine to one was not significantly different from that of a comparable Saturday last December.

Are ballgames a failure because millions watch on TV with only a few thousand in the stands? Are women abandoning shopping as a source of amusement because the business has migrated to on-line while brick and mortar flounders? The fact that most wagers are being placed on-line or at distant locations is a sign of progress. Mr. Haberman completely misses this point in his piece. Does he not know about simulcasting? As most of us know this gives racing the ability to reach almost everyone in the country. Now snowbound fans in Duluth Minnesota can play Aqueduct from their couch or fans in Chicago can bet Aqueduct from their Hawthorne racecourse. This is progress and not a sign of a game in crisis. Haberman stands this fact on its head and uses it to make the point that horseplayers have found "other ways to throw away their money". Anyone who does not understand this elementary fact should not be an information source- conversely this is the mark of a source of disinformation.

Not Fit For Marriage

In the post sexual revolution Western world people are just not marriage material anymore. This is not only applicable to the domestic situation paradigm. Even in sports men can not stay committed or married to one thing. To be a fan of horse racing you must be married to it. This fact was illustrated while the commentators discussed the Rachel/Zenyatta match-up on ESPN's "Pardon The Interruption" and "Around The Horn". Rather than discussing the event the reaction was more of a shrug of the shoulders. Tony Realie referred to the one favorable responder on Around The Horn as "the only person to visit an OTB not on the recently deceased list" and stated the only thing that would get him to watch it would be "if Danica Patrick was one of the jockeys". Then Mike Wilbon on PTI, apologizing to his dead father who "loved" horse racing, said "he could care less but would feel guilty as he flipped the channel to find something really interesting.


ESPN Commentator Tony Reali thinks horse racing is for old guys

These opinions are not isolated; these are the ubiquitous opinions of the masses regarding horse racing. As a leisure pastime horse racing requires too much thinking and commands too much engagement for the common man. Horse racing is high maintenance entertainment. The modern man needs something quick, easy and emotionally stimulating. The entertainment of choice should tug on the emotional heartstrings producing feelings of wonder, awe, anxiety and anticipation. While horse racing does cultivate many emotions in people it does so after a long term engagement. Before the deep positive feeling are developed the horse racing fan will likely bear the emotional devastation of losing a large wager or seeing a horse get hurt. Horse racing's long term engagement of reason has little appeal for a population that used to jumping from one short term thrill to another.


The ball sports discussed on TV have broad appeal because they are easy to understand. Due to the constant droning by the TV presenters, everyone can be an expert without feeling thing sting of being wrong or confused. The presenters hold the hands of the fans and make opinions in people where there are is limited brain activity. By providing all the requisite thoughts needed for the viewers the presenters ensure everyone that watches can follow along with ease. In contrast racing's complex PP's can bewilder the masses with a barrage of numbers, obscure figures and industry verbiage. The horse racing game is challenging; even the commentators frequently look foolish as their expert opinion fails to produce most of the time.

The appeal of these games is mostly in manipulating the emotions of the viewers. In contrast racing appeals to reason; reason is a mental facility that many people either do not use or do not realize even exists. With so few people using reason in their daily life racing has a limited market to draw upon. People are not going to say "horse racing? I'm too shallow and flaky to follow that". Instead the horse racing game is dismissed a total bore and a mindless exercise of animals running in an oval. Sadly most do not even realize the challenge and enrichment procured from internalizing and solving the puzzle of "who is going to win this race today?". While horse racing flounders TV-centric games that manipulate emotions like football or MMA fighting bring in the big ratings.

Compared to the long term marriage commitment required to follow horse racing, watching ball sports is like going to a singles bar. You can just jump into a singles bar, have a few drinks, maybe a dance or two and if the night is really good it may end at an hotel room. When these ballgames are over the viewer can cut all ties, just like a guy leaving the hotel. With racing there are long-term commitments; you have the bankroll to propagate, there is the guilt tied in to losing, there are future cards to consider and self control to master. This commitment only appeals to the few. These days manipulating passions is going to trump fostering long term reason time after time. It is clear that the commentators on ESPN clearly prefer the singles bar fun over the long term enrichment of marriage.