And while I\'m on the subject of relationships and politics influencing reporting--
John\'s post is pretty funny, but I\'m going to take a calmer approach to Hegarty\'s follow-up column in the Monday DRF. Aside from the thousands of words that are heavy on innuendo and light on facts, one thing stands out-- other rebate shops are very bad, but RGS is a paragon of virtue. This is what I was talking about in my earlier post, and it took exactly one day for Matt\'s bias to rear its head. From what I have been told for quite a while, he has a relationship with some of the people involved with RGS, which is by its very nature in competition with other rebate sites.
Early last year, when Matt took a shot at me, he did so by writing an article taking a shot at one of our partners in the rebate venture (again, NOT one of the ones named in the indictment), and then \"guilting\" us by association by saying at the end of the article that we were doing business with them-- we were not involved directly in the article, but he stuck us in right after a paragraph rehashing an old story knocking our partners. Importantly, he quoted people saying bad things about our partner, but did NOT call us or our partner to seek a response.
Cut to now. Hegarty writes an article that serves up a nice, smelly mix of drugs, organized crime, and unspecified evil doings by unnamed rebate sites. But he calls up RGS to get a quote about how THEY are for full disclosure, immediately seperating them from the pack.
Nice journalism.
JB,
I don\'t see what you are so upset about. I didn\'t come away from the article thinking all rebate shops were a problem.
If Hegarty has a relationship with RGS it certainly gives them an advantage, but as long as he\'s not lying about them or anyone else there really is no problem. It seems wise that they would use that contact to seperate themselves from the pack. That\'s just business.
I believe it is now up to you and your partners to meet or exceed the standards of quality and disclosure required by the industry so that you can be are seen in a similar or better light. How you go about promoting that and overcoming the disadvantage is another issue.
Yes, it is up to us. But there is only one reporter covering business (and especially rebate) stories for the Form, and if he has an interest in promoting the competition, that\'s a problem. Especially if he is stoking the fires for the rebate shops that he is not cozy with being cut off.
Good journalism would have meant contacting ALL the major rebate places.
It\'s sad that a paper that employs Crist and Privman (two people I find to have much integrity) would allow someone like Hegarty to write such obviously biased reports.
Crist should be all over this guy. I lose a bit of respect for him that he isn\'t.
He never had mine.
First thing he did when he took over DRF was to publish an article that said \"no cutesy human interest stories about the track bugler\"....
LOL
Why not simply write a letter to the editor.
I like the track Bugler. I don\'t think the paper needs to be turned into a band review paper, but theres absolutely nothing wrong with human or equine interest stories now and then. Theres more to the game than mere betting and cashing. If theres not raze Saratoga and burn every book written about the sport. Start with Seabisquit. Oh and no more movies.
CtC
Post Edited (01-17-05 10:28)
CH-- As I said in my first post on the scandal (\"Back\", 1/14), I do feel a letter to the editor coming. First question is whether I have time to write it, second is whether they will run it considering my brawl with the editor and Hegarty a year ago, that part of my letter will concern their coverage, and that they have published me several times before. I have to pick my spots, but this may be the right one.
TGJB -
I\'d pick another spot. I agree with classhandicapper that you\'re overreacting to the article.
I\'m not a big Hegarty fan (I don\'t think he\'s very good), but my informed guess is that all reporters have a list of people they call when they need a quote. They compile the list based on who they can rely upon to (a) provide the needed info or quote, and (b) call back in time for the reporter to meet his deadline. If you want to cultivate that kind of relationship, there are ways to do it. RGS obviously does. Hegarty certainly had no journalistic obligation to get me-too quotes from every rebate shop.
Practically speaking, racetrack operators are not going to cut off a rebate shop based on what Hegarty writes. Money (handle) talks, and they listen.
In general, if racing is going to get cleaned up, I don\'t think the racing media is going to play a leading role. Perhaps because the racing reporters are afraid to bite the hand that feeds them, I\'ve noticed that much of the good investigative journalism about racing is not done by a paper\'s racing reporter.
I can\'t locate the original Hegarty \"Rebate Shops are the problem\" article. If anyone can search it out I\'d appreciate if you would provide a link.
It's a funny thing about momentous times. What's quizzical is that a large percentage (even a majority) can fail to see the correctness or incorrectness of an action until months and even years have passed and the reality of it finally sinks in. I don\'t have to point to events to draw an illustration. I\'ll let you pick your own. History is replete with them, but generally they involve support of the status quo and the mistreatment of a minority or those different than the persecutor. They involve the failure to see the harm and the wrong continues for much longer because of misunderstanding, lethargy and subservience to the powers that be.
Just before the story broke we were discussing the drug use issue on this board and there were a fair number inclined to look the other way or disagree with the idea that drugs were prevalent and impacting the game. No one is saying the doping of horses is the equivalent of persecuting a group of people. It's a question of recognizing what's going on. As a horse racing fan you have to decide is it a doping issue or is it about rebate shops? What is the predominate concern? If it's not primarily an issue about rebate shops why should we tolerate the watchdogs of the game \"phrasing\" the issue as if it is?
I can\'t find the article again, but I believe Hegarty was doubly off base by quoting one rebate shop that he is not critical of in a story about the danger of rebate shops that should have been about doping. It was poor journalism and in my opinion is more than deserving of dissenting letters to the editor.
Post Edited (01-18-05 14:38)
It\'s not simply a matter of what Hegarty said in this article, it\'s a matter of what he said to me personally about rebates in our original conversation last year, which I mentioned in my original letter to the editor, and the way he handled the follow-up stories about us, Magna, and our partners. And, on the other side, the way he has handled all mentions of RGS, and what I have been told about why. He didn\'t just call them for a quote about the industry-- he ran their statement about how they are running a clean ship, after implying that the rebate industry (meaning everybody else) is not clean. They are not the only ones playing clean-- but they are the ones Hegarty is playing ball with.
What he writes, in a one newspaper town, creates an atmosphere of hysteria. He did it last year when we had the ill-fated joint venture with Magna, who didn\'t handle themselves too well either, by the way, when everything hit the fan-- they acted like it was all news to them. Hegarty implied all kinds of illegal activity and nefarious doings, none of which were true, and that put pressure that caused Magna to back out. He did it again here, and the next thing you know there is a statement of moral outrage about rebates coming from the NTRA, which is trying to get out in front of the story.
TGJB -
If your letter to the editor is to be based primarily on things that happened a year ago and on rumor and innuendo about Matt Hegarty\'s relationship with RGS, I suspect you won\'t get far. If this story plays out as you have suggested, there will be better opportunities to get your point across. Just my opinion.
That\'s not the letter. If I have time to write it, and if they publish it, it will cover serious issues.