Given that similar headlines appeared on the Washington Post, LA Times, and CNN websites, I\'m guessing that they all received a press release from PETA and decided to go with it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/sports/santa-anita-fatality.html
Leaving aside the issue of whether the death of one horse falls within the scope of \"All the news that is fit to print,\" I could have written everything else in the article without leaving my laptop. Drape got info about the breakdown from the Equibase chart. There is no evidence that he talked to any of the horse\'s connections, a veterinarian, or anyone from the track.
Why are we still counting fatalities since December? Clearly, the track put new protocols in place since then. Wouldn\'t it be more intellectually honest to track the fatalities and rate since the new protocols were put in place?
The PETA statement that zero fatalities is the only acceptable rate and suggestion that Santa Anita has bought into that warrants a reality check.
I understand that it may be a legitimate issue whether horse racing should continue in California, and if it goes away, I can live with that, but this article reflects an abhorrent trend in journalism to contribute to polarization rather than add to the knowledge necessary for informed decisions.
I think it\'s a lot worse that about 1.5% of the population can get something on the ballot that all they\'ll need to do is convince 50.01% of the people who vote that year to ban racing. Since racing is not a sport followed by the majority of voters, it could be pretty easy to get it banned in the name of saving the \"poor, abused animals\". It\'s pretty dangerous that voters who have nothing to do with an industry they know nothing about can shut it down if PETA can convince them to. Then PETA will set it\'s sights on the San Diego Zoo until the only animals left in California are dogs, cats & contented cows.
I assume that Richiebee\'s post along with the related string was removed more for its political content than for its PETA comments. I want to be clear that I do not object to attempts to reform horse racing. I do not even object to the idea that, in an expensive state and without slots support, horse racing may no longer make sense for California. I do object to arguments that intentionally distort, ignore, or misinterpret data. They are especially objectionable where they are being put forth to abruptly deprive hundreds of people in the horse racing and ancillary industries of their livelihoods. Absent clear evidence that Santa Anita has issues that do not exist elsewhere, the conversation ought to be taking place on a national, not a California, level and ought to consider the need to allow time for people to transition to the new environment.
You really think you could have any type of civilized conversation with these people.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/17/peta-sorry-for-taking-girls-dog-putting-it-down