- This topic has 24 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
What’s everyones thoughts on the media’s reaction to the Grand National.
Is this the audience we’ve spent millions over the past couple of years trying to attract?
Are these the media outlets we want to use to market our sport, they can and have the power to swing a lot of peoples mind and squash any progress we’ve made in recent years.
Some of the shite i’ve heard from people calling into Talksport on last couple of days is cringeworthy, I wouldn’t recommend if you want to still have 2 kidneys left after the laughter.
You heard the "RSPCA" are now getting involved, for what? this is absolutely obsured.
If Aintree do a thing to the National i.e make the race shorter, reduce fences jumped etc i will write an angry letter to them every day until i get a reply because i will not have a bunch of attention seeking nobodies who know nothing of the sport ruin a race that has been a British institution for almost 200 years.
There’s a really good piece in the Independent by Dominic Prince defending the race and really bringing the fact home that these horses live wonderful lives and that these animal rights arse whipes are nothing but trouble makers. His last sentence is…
"The Grand National is a welcome fillip in an otherwise pretty beleaguered industry. Leave it alone."
Have these animal rights people not completely misinterpreted Mick Fitzgerald’s comments about "obstacles". Was he not talking about the general procedure where an obstacle (a fence) is avoided if it’s not safe to jump it?
As they approach the fence the jockeys would have no idea whether there was a horse, jockey, or animal rights protester on the other side of the fence? "Obstacle" seems entirely appropriate to me in a general context.
- Total Posts 17716
If anyone apart from me has been listening to
BBC Radio 4
‘s influential
PM
news programme, you’ll have heard a "debate" in which an East Anglian academic called Kennedy (from his Scots East Coast accent clearly a man of Scots Puritan lineage) called for the banning of all jump racing on
"moral grounds"
, as the
"risk factor"
of losing 6 out of every 1000 runners is
"far too high"
.
He was able to marshal plenty of statistics, and articulately put across the case for the Sport’s
"moral repugnance"
. Against him was a barely articulate ex-amateur jockey, who only made one good point – what was the moral situation of people such as Dr Kennedy (and the Animal Activists) who are prepared to spill so much ink over the death of two horses, and nothing whatsoever over the jockey who’s still in a coma from his ride in the previous race?
I tell you, people, we have a fight on here.
These people are not going to rest content until the whole sport – not just jumping – is banned. And they can muster an academically respectable face.
Until it all becomes too much for the RSPCA & League Against Cruel Sports & they call for an outright ban, the future of racing is pretty safe.
The Grand National is a different matter although as always, it’s racing’s supporters that will talk it into the grave. The Daily Mail, Talksport, phone ins on Radio 4. These things exist for no other reason than for people to have a rant.
It’s when others who (should) know better start giving them credence that we start having serious problems.
Actually, I’d prefer to know how the media should react.
I’m sure some of these ‘media types’ are aware that the Grand National presents a bigger danger to each horse than a standard steeplechase. So, if you’re someone who’s not involved in the sport, and you’re told/know this, how are you meant to react?
It is an extreme race – one that is so extreme ‘it is like no other.’ And the media and public are made fully aware of that, if they didn’t already know.
Racing glorifies the risk, danger, fear, fallers etc year on year. Yes, within such often used quotes about the race, such things are being glorified.
As a Paul Haigh Guardian article from 2008 said, it is not real racing and it does very little for the sport. The ‘it is not real racing’ part is the section that hits me most.
I was about the only person who likes racing who questioned the use of the Grand National for McCoy’s ‘campaign’ nonsense last year, so my views are not an immediate over-reaction to Saturday.
Of course the media’s reaction is totally wrong but it hasn’t been like this previously when horses have been killed in the National has it? What is significantly different this time? If you think it’s bad this year, wait till there’s a repeat next year or the year after.
However much we may not like it I’m afraid it’s a case of out of sight out of mind.There’s no doubt racing and Aintree have dropped a significant clanger here and it could have a significant impact on national hunt racing in the future.
Will sponsors want to be involved with a sport with such an "image"?
For instance when/if John Smith’s stop sponsoring the National how easy will it to get a replacement who will be willing to put a similar amount of money into the race/meeting if the sort of thing we saw on Saturday is repeated every year or two?
Doesn’t matter how much you tinker with this, that and the other with the race, there will always be injuries and fatalities.The RSPCA have always been involved with the sport, their involvement is nothing new.
You’d have to say there is something fundamentally wrong with a media seemingly more concerned with two horses than a young man currently lying in an induced coma.
Their lack of understanding, knowledge, playing to the gallery and catchcries, say more about them, than anything else.
Long live the Grand National. God bless you, Peter Toole.
Have these animal rights people not completely misinterpreted Mick Fitzgerald’s comments about "obstacles". Was he not talking about the general procedure where an obstacle (a fence) is avoided if it’s not safe to jump it?
As they approach the fence the jockeys would have no idea whether there was a horse, jockey, or animal rights protester on the other side of the fence? "Obstacle" seems entirely appropriate to me in a general context.
i thought exactly the same as you, im sure mick fitz never meant the stricken horses and the media have used this to cause more harm
vf
It is always amusing to listen to the pundits and phone-in sages commenting on the cruelty of National Hunt racing and the Grand National in particular. After they’ve written their articles and said their bit on radio and TV, they’ll all go home to eat the flesh of chickens who’ve lived miserable existences.Maybe a bit of pate or pork will go down a treat.
After that, they’ll have a drink and laugh with their wives/girlfriends/sisters/daughters/mistresses/mothers who’ll all defend their right to have an abortion and anyone who questions that right is dismissed. The sport needs someone to tell these hyprocitical tossers that:-
a) Racehorses only come in to existence to, er, race. And if there was no (or significantly less) horseracing, then thousands currently in training would end up on a Frenchman’s butty pretty quickly and ..
b) The VAST majority of horses be they flat or NH animals will survive their racing careers and will have (compared to the average chicken, pig, sheep, cow etc.) a life of luxury whilst in training.
Once again, we have an example of urban man (and woman) and media (that know as much about farming/agriculture/animal husbandry/nature as Rab C. Nesbitt) believing that life for animals should resemble some care-bear, disneyesque fantasy world where they’ll all die in their sleep curled up with a cup of cocoa.
NH racing is not cruel, the animals are not abused (quite the opposite) and those in the sport love horses and do not deliberately make the sport roo risky.
The Grand National is demanding, but to say it is "extreme" is hyperbole and diminishes the meaning of "extreme". But repeat that word often enough and the shallow-thinking masses will come to believe it.What annoys me is that somebody who just watches this race alone then thinks they are an expert on National Hunt Racing.
All Weather Hurdling was far more dangerous in its day and thankfully not part of the programme.
Aintree is now as safe as you can get, Australian jumps is much more worse with those appalling brush steeplechase fences and over here horses are taught to respect the fences.
Some of the posts read like ‘horses are treated well, better than other animals, so what happens is fine.’
The Grand National is 5 (yes, five) times more dangerous than a standard steeplechase. Forget 4-5 deaths per 1000 runners in NH racing, if the Grand National was run every race you would be looking at 15+ deaths per 1000 runners. So, no, Aintree is not as safe as it could be.
The only part of the media’s reaction I don’t like is how they were all too happy to promote the race on Friday before slamming it on Sunday.
The only part of the media’s reaction I don’t like is how they were all too happy to promote the race on Friday before slamming it on Sunday.
The Daily Mail did it both at the same time on Sunday.
Thank God a respected newspaper hasn’t been leading the charge.
It is always amusing to listen to the pundits and phone-in sages commenting on the cruelty of National Hunt racing and the Grand National in particular. After they’ve written their articles and said their bit on radio and TV, they’ll all go home to eat the flesh of chickens who’ve lived miserable existences.Maybe a bit of pate or pork will go down a treat.
After that, they’ll have a drink and laugh with their wives/girlfriends/sisters/daughters/mistresses/mothers who’ll all defend their right to have an abortion and anyone who questions that right is dismissed. The sport needs someone to tell these hyprocitical tossers that:-
a) Racehorses only come in to existence to, er, race. And if there was no (or significantly less) horseracing, then thousands currently in training would end up on a Frenchman’s butty pretty quickly and ..
b) The VAST majority of horses be they flat or NH animals will survive their racing careers and will have (compared to the average chicken, pig, sheep, cow etc.) a life of luxury whilst in training.
Once again, we have an example of urban man (and woman) and media (that know as much about farming/agriculture/animal husbandry/nature as Rab C. Nesbitt) believing that life for animals should resemble some care-bear, disneyesque fantasy world where they’ll all die in their sleep curled up with a cup of cocoa.
NH racing is not cruel, the animals are not abused (quite the opposite) and those in the sport love horses and do not deliberately make the sport roo risky.
The Grand National is demanding, but to say it is "extreme" is hyperbole and diminishes the meaning of "extreme". But repeat that word often enough and the shallow-thinking masses will come to believe it.Superb post completely on the nail.
Perhaps those newspapers that find the race so abhorrent will forgo printing their four page pullouts for next years race and do the decent thing.
If i was the powers that be i`d ban those that like to write sensationalist bollocks from printing the Grand National racecard for the next five years.I think when we refer to "media reaction" it’s important to distinguish between a) the phone-in ranters and the heat and smoke their outrage engenders at the front end of newspapers and b) the opinions of journalists in the sports pages.
Most of the pieces that fall into the second category have been supportive of the Grand National and of racing. I’m thinking in particular of the well argued, eloquent articles by Alan Lee in the Times today and Alastair Down on the front of the RP.
Obviously, the coverage of racing all year round and the previews to big events will be produced by sports desks – not the news desks who have spent a couple of days giving space to some emotive reaction to Saturday’s events – so there isn’t really any inconsistency there.
I guess I should declare an interest – I work in the sporting media and am a Grand National nut.
Perhaps those newspapers that find the race so abhorrent will forgo printing their four page pullouts for next years race and do the decent thing.
If i was the powers that be i`d ban those that like to write sensationalist bollocks from printing the Grand National racecard for the next five years.Awfully naive.
The National is racing’s biggest event of the year and the industry’s PR and Marketing types encourage trainers and jockeys to co-operate fully with the media to promote it.
It was inevitable that this year’s race would subsequently attract scrutiny and both defence and criticism. In print this was from racing correspondents and general journos who otherwise wouldn’t write about racing.
Elements of the industry have now closed ranks, gone into denial and rounded upon the critics. This is likely to simply perpetuate adverse comment rather than an open minded approach where everyone has their say, learns lessons and moves on.
As regards censorship and banning:-
1. We live in a democracy where there is a free press
2. Some sports editors would be delighted at such a self defeating tactic. Racing is a minority sport competing against the cash cow of football, plus cricket, rugby, Olympics etc.
Some papers already decline to carry racecards for minor meetings. A ban would just justify an extension of this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.