What I'm reading: Saint, by T.L. Gray
What I'm working on: Library presentation for Friday.
I figured that with the possibility of a significant moment in sports, I'd watch the Belmont Stakes on Saturday, so I could say I had. Not all the pre-race hype; I tuned in as the horses were being loaded into the gate.
Does anyone else think the television coverage went a little (ok, a LOT) overboard on Big Brown losing the Belmont? He came in dead last, which I'll agree was a story, but to totally ignore the winning horse seems a bit rude. I mean, since when don't you mention the WINNER?
Our local paper's sports section this morning wasn't much better. The headline said "BIG FROWN" and it took five paragraphs into the story for a quick mention of who actually won the race, and then went right back to Big Brown.
My theory – the media had done all its story research and probably had the stories 90% written before the race, so they went with that, but what was television's excuse. Even when the picture cut to Da' Tara getting the flowers and being led to the winner's circle, all the audio and all the interviews were of Big Brown's jockey, the veterinarian, and anyone else they could find.
Or maybe they'd built Big Brown up so much, they had to justify why they were wrong?
Am I the only one who finds this reporting biased? Other opinions as to why a horse's moment of glory would be diminished by hype?
Welcome to Terry's Place. I'm an author of mystery and romance, happy to share what I'm learning, both about writing and anything I find interesting.
2 comments:
You know i noticed that, seems like the winner kinda took the back seat to the one everyone was pulling for that lost. Actually my husband told me i could bet 20.00 but he wouldn't place my bet he said it was to late by the time i chose (bull crap he didn't like my pick) well guess what my bet was on the one that Won!
Too bad about the bet! Maybe next time he'll listen.
Post a Comment