THOROUGHBRED TIMES RIP OFF
I felt a little angst when a friend called Monday night to say that “someone at the Thoroughbred Times is reading the Paulick Report, because they ripped off your story about past-posting on a race from Philadelphia Park and didn’t give you any credit.”
I was in the middle of a dinner celebrating my son’s 20th birthday at the new Malone’s restaurant in the Palomar Center in Lexington (highly recommended, by the way, certainly up to the standards of all the Malone’s and with an appealing outside bar with large plasma screen TVs showing horse racing), so I didn’t get a chance to read the story until sometime later in the evening.
When I did, I was shocked and even more filled with angst when I read the article, written by the interestingly named Frank Angst, a ground soldier in the trade publication army of the Thoroughbred Times I’d crossed paths with on a number of occasions during my tenure as editor in chief of Bloodhorse.
Believe it or not, there are ethical standards among journalists, just as, I suppose, there are among horse traders. One of those standards is that publications that run exclusive stories should receive attribution or credit whenever another publication does a “cover your ass” rewrite, which is clearly what ground soldier Angst was ordered to do from on-high. To quote the leading media critic Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post and CNN’s Reliable Sources, “Making a couple of calls to confirm a story that a journalist would not otherwise know about doesn’t excuse the obligation to give proper credit.”
Dick Jerardi, an Eclipse Award-winning writer for the Philadelphia Daily News (and an occasional Thoroughbred Times contributor), found the past-posting article of interest and wrote a story for his paper, giving attribution to the Paulick Report.
The story by Frank Angst is not the kind of journalism my old friend Mark Simon, the longtime editor of Thoroughbred Times, expected from his employees 20 years ago when he hired me as the weekly magazine’s managing editor, and I doubt that Mark’s standards have changed very much. So I sent Angst a few angry emails Monday night that he’s had plenty of time to respond to, and hasn’t. (Note to Frank: It’s 2008. If you’re not checking your inbox 24/7, you’re no damned good.)
This is the same Thoroughbred Times and same Angst that was so anxious to report my demise from Bloodhorse last August but failed to run even a brief note about the start-up of the Paulick Report a few weeks back (neither, incidentally, has the Bloodhorse, though traffic reports on the Paulick Report web site show Bloodhorse IP addresses as a frequent, daily visitor…perhaps looking for news leads?). Someone once suggested that there is something Machiavellian about the trade press, that the ends (keeping the trade publications in a cozy, friendly relationship with the industry they cover) justify the means (parsing and lifting from non-trade press). That led me to run a picture of the Italian diplomat and author Niccolo Macchiavelli, especially since Frank Angst isn’t famous enough to have a photo on the Flickr web site.
I never read The Prince, Macchiavelli’s most famous written work (I’m sure I’m not the only one who likes to say something is Macchiavellian without knowing what the hell we are talking about), but I do know something about the Thoroughbred trade press and the cozy relationship it has with advertisers and industry organizations it covers. I plead nolo contendere to charges that I was influenced at times during my 15 years at Bloodhorse, succumbing occasionally to brow-beating from advertisers, members of the organization’s board of trustees, its parent at the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, or from a publisher whose frequent jaunts to Margaritaville were made possible by a contented, free-spending group of advertisers. I’ll never forget the chilling words one of the Bloodhorse trustees said to me when I first met him: “We can’t tell you what to do or write. All we can do is fire you.”
The trade publications, for example, are not going to report on something that nearly every breeder in Central Kentucky already knows – that top older stallion Seeking the Gold has been shooting blanks this breeding season and may be finished – because 1) the farm that stands the stallion, Claiborne, is a major advertisers at Bloodhorse and Thoroughbred Times and hasn’t sent out official word yet through a press release, and 2) the stallion is controlled by Dinny Phipps chairman of the Jockey Club, and the people who run the two publications don’t want to do anything to upset Phipps since they enjoy being invited to the Jockey Club Dinner in Saratoga Springs, NY, in August.
Of course, in the Jockey Club’s Macchiavellian manner of controlling as much of the industry as possible (did I just insert Niccolo Macchiavelli again?), one of the members of the board of trustees at Bloodhorse is Bill Farish, who has a double-barrel blast of lucky sperm as the son of Jockey Club vice chairman Will Farish and son-in-law of Dinny Phipps. The chairman of the Bloodhorse board is Stuart Janney, the cousin of Dinny Phipps.
As someone once said to me, “Why should the Jockey Club buy the Bloodhorse when it already controls it?”
The lifting by the Thoroughbred Times of the Philadelphia Park story wasn’t the first time in the brief history of the Paulick Report and certainly won’t be the last time something like this happens. I’m happy to say I may even be influencing their coverage.
In the wake of our breaking story last week on the election of the Breeders’ Cup board of members and trustees, the Paulick Report headline read: CLAY CANNED IN CUP ELECTION. A short time after that story was posted, the Thoroughbred Times apparently did another hasty rewrite, but with the bland headline: BREEDERS’ CUP ELECTS 12 TO BOARD OF MEMBERS AND TRUSTEES.
Later that night, apparently someone at the Thoroughbred Times with at least marble-sized testicles changed the story headline to read: CLAY NOT AMONG 12 ELECTED TO BREEDERS’ CUP BOARD OF MEMBERS, TRUSTEES.
Bloodhorse.com apparently transitioned the other way in its brief rewrite and headline treatment. Its original headline, posted hours after the Paulick Report broke the election story, read: CLAY LOSES BREEDERS’ CUP BID. Sometime later, it was changed to the milquetoast: FOUR NOT RE-ELECTED TO CUP BOARD.
Perhaps someone thought the latter headline told the story more accurately than the former. It’s more likely that someone reminded the editorial side of Bloodhorse how much money Clay’s Three Chimneys Farm spends on advertising on its web site and magazine.
The Paulick Report will not be beholden to industry organizations like the Jockey Club or to major advertisers. We are operating on the simple premise that the Thoroughbred industry needs and deserves independent reporting and analysis. Similar to listener or viewer supported operations like National Public Radio or Public Television, we believe we will receive support from readers like you.
By Ray Paulick
Copyright ©2008, The Paulick Report
CORRECTION: THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THIS STORY INCORRECTLY STATED THAT A.P. INDY "HAS BEEN SHOOTING BLANKS" DURING THE 2008 BREEDING SEASON. ACCORDING TO STATISTICS PROIDED BY WILL FARISH, A.P. INDY HAS COVERED 113 MARES AND HAS 80 OF THOSE MARES IN FOAL. THE PAULICK REPORT REGRETS THE ERROR.
Tags: Add new tag, Bill Farish, bloodhorse, dick jerardi, Dinny Phipps, frank angst, Horse Racing, howard kurtz, journalistic ethics, journalistic standards, macchiavellian, mark simon, niccolo macchiavelli, Ogden Mills Phipps, past-posting, Paulick Report, Philadelphia park, Ray Paulick, Robert Clay, thoroughbred times, Three Chimneys, trade publications, Will Farish
July 8th, 2008 at 10:29 am
English turf writer Tony Morris once completely “lifted” a story I had written, which is not as unusual as one would think. But, as luck would have it, I was en route to the Newmarket December Sales, where I made sure to run into him, which gave me great satisfaction in teasing him over a period of about 5 days. I will never forget the expression on his face when I showed up at Newmarket on the same day the story was published. He was one happy guy when it was time for me to return to the U. S.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Ray
Good for you. It is all about “ethics”. As a blogger who loves the sport I always make proper attributions, credit and links to any story I comment on or report facts from in my blog. To say that a major newspaper/website should do so also goes without saying. It is the ethical right thing to do, and of course they know that. Keep up the good work.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Hi Ray:
Great job with the story and congratulations.
The way this rejoinder began, however, was reminiscent of a one-time Bloodlines correspondent with DRF.
Stay well and very good to see you in the saddle.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:42 am
this is interesting. To add to the “discussion” is whether it is more important to write the best story and provide the best coverage, with proper attribution, or just “good enough” coverage even knowing there is better information out there. is it best to serve your readers well with the acknowledgment you are sending them elsewhere for the information, OR keep them within your medium without serving them well.
when i was providing Barbaro updates during his NBC stay, I had inside info. all the time and published the updates frequently and accurately. i was surprised other sites did not simply put a link to my work since they were also keeping their readers up to date, or at least that is what they stated they were doing.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:51 am
God bless you Ray. An irrepressable voice of common sense has long been needed in the trade publications (in an industry that thinks Indian Charlie is news…). Keep doing what you’re doing - there are many out there that have your back.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
News about the news ain’t news. Get over it and move on to somehting that matters to some one other than writers and publishers. The whole ‘me first’ attitude from writers is crap to anyone other than writers and publishers. Yeah, yeah,…’readers want it first’, well, we have 3-4 pubs in horse racing worth reading and we all read them all anyway.
The Paulick report has shown some promise, but if this is what we have to expect, the lead story being whining from the ranks about who rewrote “my” story, then it’s namesake has missed the point entirely. I read this report and am writing now because i am sick of the crap the other guys put out for the very reasons Paulick is. Keep your antics with fellow writers to yourself.
Please write something that will inform or enteratain your readers.
Post note: is it just me or is the irony of your AP Indy mistake too good to be true.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Charming! I had something similar happen a few years ago (and I’m sure those publishing my work as their own figured it was on such an obscure topic that no one would notice - but hey, guess who actively looks for news on that topic!) - all I got out of it was a little apology and some free theatre tickets.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I’m just wondering if you have the right to use the images you post on your “Drudge-esque” report.
A ripoff is a ripoff. I notice that Thoroughbred Times, BloodHorse, DRF post credits below their images. Why don’t you?
Pot meet Kettle?
July 8th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Plagarism. . . isn’t it the sincerest form of flattery.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Years ago, as a newspaper reporter, I was covering a congressional race and after following the incumbent candidate around pretty relentlessly one weekend, got a very frank quote from him in a one-on-one moment about the contest being the toughest he’d been in and that for the first time in his career, he thought he was losing. A few weeks later, that exact quote popped up in a prominent news magazine without any kind of attribution. Still rankles a teensy bit …
July 8th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Ray,
Welcome from a loyal reader. That said, everyone who reads your rag knows what a fraud you were when running the Bloodhorse and your own history of corruption. It is surely pleasurable to see you begging for money -donations etc. I might send you a few pennies as a good will gesture. You will certainly get what is long overdue. Perhaps the most outragous of your myriad of errors was the idea that you gave no talent Steve Haskin a job and unleashed his nonsense on unsuspecting and now nauseated readers. You should go to prison for that. Have a great day!!
Tony
July 8th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Very entertaining, Ray. Very amusing description of Farish’s DNA. It conjures images of little lucky sperm battling it out like mini Machiavellis - after all, sperm know no more morality than some journalists. And “surfertex” misses the point here; many of us are unaware that our racing publications lack the integrity and independence that we are accustomed to in our general media and we don’t appreciate spin that borders on propaganda, as your Bloodhorse trustee told you, “We can’t tell you what to do or write. All we can do is fire you.â€
July 8th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Congratulations on your straight-from-the-shoulder article. If we are to modernize and revolutionize our business, we need more fearless journalism. Shrug off any suggestion your article is not news. Grand larceny is always news.
The “family” ties are even more entwined than you report. Junior Farish’s wife is actually the step-daughter of Phipps. Believe her father is Bayard Sharp, another pillar of the hierarchy.
“Family” is the word The Jockey Club uses to describe it’s many profitable subsidiaries. That is very apt because it is the word the Mafia uses to cover it’s many branches.
TJC uses control of the American Stud Book to feed all the other enterprises. Now it is an octopus with so many tentacles it is hard to keep track of all it controls in racing. It is about time the Federal would-be reformers took a very good look at it. It is a monopoly. The Jockey Club should be made to divest itself of the Stud Book. Then the rest of the family would have to pay breeders for the information the family-members now get for nothing.
The Stud Book should be kept by a governmentally controlled agency or, maybe, the TOBA. The latter has some semblance of a democratically elected Board. That is a critical feature which is absent from The Jockey Club and The Breeders’ Cup.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Ray
Thanks for providing a truly independent alternative to the Thoroughbred Times. Thanks to the Bloodhorse for making you available to provide an alternative to their tedium And thanks for holding the status quo’s feet to the fire. Truly stimulative dialog like this — apart from the tadry hate mail (an obviously disturbed and bitter personna) — can only give voice to long overdue actions and reforms to re-engineer our sport for a new generation
July 8th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
So I just want to get this straight. Ripping off the name, style, design, and, at times, the tawdry sensibilities of a popular website - OK. Reporting on a story that you got first - not OK. I got that right?
July 8th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I think we are all having problems with analogies today. Claiming that this story is akin to using pictures or other website templates is just false. The whole point is that Thoroughbred Times scooped a scoop and claimed it their own. Ray is using pictures with no implecation that he took them. Likewise, the template is so unabashedly similar, it is no different than the numerous blog templates being employed.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Alan, there is a quantum difference between website appearances and the Thoroughbred Times ripping off a story. And you know it. Not that this is the first time that they’ve done this as they make a living out of it.
Sticks and stones may break Ray’s bones presumably, but words will never hurt him, I suspect..
As Dan Rather said, Ray, Courage! And keep the faith.
Bloggers of the World Unite
July 8th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
What, no mention of Barry Irwin-Weisbord (surely one and the same) and Thoroughbred Daily News and the perpetual lifting of story after story from every available website both domestically and internationally? Interesting that TDN doesn’t bother having a decent website. Then every writer at every publication would be able to re-read his/her material but without the by-line. What happens if TDN publishes an incorrect and unverifiable story about someone such as Aidan O’Brien or even the Niarchos family. Do they blame the writer of the original story and therefore admit that they
simply lifted the story and published ? They do the former and not the latter of course !
July 8th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Just because - everyone does it - is no excuse for plagarism. Not providing citations is venal thievery, and can result in expulsion from academic institutions. I’m sorry that so many journalists and bloggers have experienced these thefts and have come to accept them as commonplace. Why have standards sunk so low?
Thanks for letting this reader know.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Are we sure that Frank actually “ripped” the story off? I mean, it seems from reading the story that he actually did some reporting of his own and called folks in Delaware, etc. — it’s not as if he did a cut-paste hack job. Does Ray deserve a hat tip? Maybe, but what’s to say that the Tbred Times actually got the scoop from Ray? Couldn’t they have got an independent tip?
Also, Ray do I understand that the BH under your run ALWAYS credited other papers and trade mags (and blogs) with hat tips (i.e.: “as was first reported by X”)?
July 8th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Now, that’s the way to handle a mistake. Bravo!
Now, let’s avoid more “crow” banquets - immediately stop relying on the following source:
“According to the Association of Racing Commissioners International database, [Steve] Asmussen has a total of 74 rulings involving him, including a number of medication violations, dating back to 1990.”
As seen with the ARCI figures involving Rich Dutrow, this organization employs illiterate incompetents who issue discipline and suspension reports that contain ridiculous multiple redundancies.
(I’m no fan of Rich Dutrow; I’ve publicly called for an immediate revocation of his training license for grossly slandering other trainers.) .
What’s more, I’ve never seen any report with their name in it that actually lists the authors of the report or the executive who will publicly stand behind the report. It’s always “ARCI” this and “ARCI” that - as if the public has no interest in who actually is responsible for reporting what they consider factual information - i.e., listing a trainer as having been fined twice - with two identical fines - on a given date.
Media reporters/editors who blindly rely on ARCI-provided information are courting inevitable embarrassment and the risk of destroying their own reputations for accuracy.
On another front, Ray, you’re gotten off to a splendid start. The Report’s content is solid. What’s more, you seem to be one of the few people out there who understand that legibility is indispensible. Your graphics are first-rate. I proudly count myself as one of many who have mailed in a contribution to keep your Report rolling.
Regards,
July 8th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
P.S. I’m glad someone else brought up this point; I’d forgotten all about it.
At the very onset of this incident, how could you possibly KNOW if you were, in fact, ripped off by The Thoroughbred Times (”TT”)?
They used to - not too long ago - have a great site that was lively, colorful, informative, and most importantly, LEGIBLE.
That’s right. At least one person at TT realized that their “type size” had to be large enough, so that people could actually read what their staff had written.
Even if you know nothing about horse racing and can’t tell the difference between a colt and a mare, I think you’ve already nailed what occurred next.
That’s correct. Management started thinking.
(See Napoleonic invasion of Russia, 1812.)
Presto, a new site-design was rolled out. And the type size was now microscopic, a (Freudian-slip) standard that has continued to this day.
“TT” now stands for “tiny type.”
Who persists in going to that site in 2008? Unless they have an exclusive scoop (Edna Krabappel, in the Simpsons: “HA!”), the idea of dialing up the T-Times is none other than Exhibit A in the psychiatric report recommending your one-way trip to Bellevue.
(Ray, if you can arrange it for your reader’s letters to adjustable type size, that would be great. If ESPN - the largest collection of dolts under one American roof - can swing this, it can’t be that difficult to install.)
Hey, enough. Del Mar opens on July 16th, and right now, it feels just like that wonderful anticipatory sensation I used to have when we’d get on the train at Penn Station (before NYRA wrecked Saratoga).
See you there on the 26th of July!
July 9th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Don — A lot of sites are dropping those links to increase text size now that the newer versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox browsers allow you to press Control and the plus key to increase the size of the font. Works well on Paulick Report, and pretty well on Thoroughbred Times site, too, though some of the ads start overlapping if you go super-big.
As for the article that started all of this, I gotta agree with Steve D — more enlightening things could have been done with this post. Hope we see better down the road.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Terry: Thanks for the tip; very much appreciated. I tried it; nothing worked. Evidently, I need those newer versions of IE and FF browsers.
(It did adjust the size of the words typed on a Microsoft Word blank screen, but only downwards. Another control + hit restored it to its previous size. Interesting, but not helpful.)
I’d be disposed to issue an apology to TT (as if they care), but they ignored my emails about the problem after they had revamped (trashed) their site.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I’m with mike, i’m not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the TT actually got the tip from Paulick. And way to give a lecture on journalism ethics when you pass bad information about AP Indy from an (unconfirmed) 3rd-hand source.
Bravo indeed.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Am reposting my previous commentary on this issue with spelling and syntax corrections privately pointed out by a friend who happens to be a professional editor.
My appologies for the burden to the reader.
———————————— —————————- ————————- ———————-
A number of subtle issues were raised by this edition of Paulick Report.
And, it is good that you invite open critiques & commentary.
Journalistically speaking, the attribution issue is a matter of ethics that certainly deserves discussion, but I believe it is something best left as a footnote to an author’s column, rather than be the central focus to a first person ’see-what-they-did-to-me’ column.
On the other hand, an author could get really deep into this issue if he or she decided to address this on behalf of other writers, not merely using the forum to criticize something tinged by one’s own disappointment or anger.
Like most who professionally write about racing (or anything for that matter), I have had a multitude of handicapping ideas, professional insights & outright scoops co-opted without attribution by others through the years.
Yet, never did it seem worthwhile to point out the specifics of these omissions in any first person column. (A personal comment directly made to the writer or publication seemed a better option.)
I believe that use of your column/newsletter to get out your own disappointment &/or anger towards publications for which you may have residual negative feelings, can corrupt the central point you are trying to make.
The issue is real of course, but best to make your points on behalf of someone else, not yourself, if you want such an indictment to stick.
Perhaps you could support the point additionally via some of your own anecdotal truths, but when you attack these publications for leaving you out of the attribution mix, I think you invite a small minded war & diminish the fair minded potential of a journalistically-sound-opinion report.
The small minded wars between such publications are counterproductive on many levels.
Some examples:
* Even very good books written by Blood Horse authors are rarely if ever, reviewed in Thoroughbred Times.
* Books written by DRF authors rarely get mentioned in Blood Horse & prominent Blood Horse writers are barred from mentioning these books in their own opinion columns!
* The mere mention of a ‘Beyer Speed Figure’ in a TrackMaster column is edted [edited] out & changed to ‘Speed Figure’ by Equibase paid editors, etc.. [delete 2nd period] All examples of these small minded wars; very silly stuff.
Your report covered the Congressional hearing superbly!
Your story on the Philly Park past posting was similarly first rate.
At the core of it, you seem bent on creating a strong, independent journal of record.
Good for you! I do hope you succeed.
The industry DOES have too much influence on the publications that cover it. That good point was imbedded in your report but muted somewhat by your personal ’see-what-they-did-to-me’ rant.
Consider this: Perhaps your central point & your own personal perspective on it might have been more powerfully conveyed had you cited instances when you were forced to spin specific pieces as Editor of the BloodHorse.
At the bottom line, there are many racing fans, racing writers & horse people who do wish you well & support your intentions in this endeavor.
Be assured that these comments were written with that in mind…
All the Best/Steve Davidowitz
p.s. The corrections suggested and implemented certainly prove the value of a good editor as well as the need to be more careful, even if a spell check is not available to contributors to this forum.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Now I’m a day late and a dollar short (but then dollar isn’t worth that much any way But many many years ago as a young man (I’m 73″ ) Working cows and calf’s in spring gather an a rider stepped down wif his reins wrapped around his wrist and this ol cowboy sitting on a horse next to me rolling a cigarette shook his head and grinned at me and slyly spoke to me and said something to this day Ive never forgotten “Ya know that man abuses the god given right of being Stupid” now this saying has come to my mind many times and I guess Ive done some stupid things to But taking a mans word (written or spoke) is like taking a mans wife and both can be a trap . . . .ride on Ray ride on and the “blessings” on you.
Scrapiron
July 10th, 2008 at 8:20 am
For “Tony Donovan”….Gee, I’ve been criticized for many things, but you want to send me to jail because I gave “no talent Steve Haskin a job and unleashed his nonsense on unsuspecting and now nauseated readers”?
Steve is not only one of the most knowledgeable and passionate horse racing writers in the game today, he has the largest following, by far, of any of the writers at Bloodhorse. He’s won numerous awards for his work, and I can tell you that no one puts more into his or her writing than Steve.
To badly paraphrase from Nathan Hale, “I regret that I had only one Steve Haskin to hire for my (then) publication.” I won’t go quite so far as Patrick Henry and say “Give me Haskin or give me death,” but he’s a good man who doesn’t deserve the kind of cheap and anonymous insult you have delivered.
By the way, I’m still awaiting those few pennies you promised you would send to support the Paulick Report. I guess you’re not a man of your word, “Tony.”
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:11 pm
[...] rewrite of the story later that day, which didn’t go down too well with us. A Paulick Report follow-up focused on the two leading industry trade publications, including Bloodhorse, where I served for 15 years, touching on the cozy relationship those [...]