PDA

View Full Version : Boyd and Neville the top lede in the NYTimes!



Muck r us
Jan. 13, 2012, 08:33 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/sports/horse-is-a-fire-survivor-and-a-possible-olympian.html?_r=1&hp

VicariousRider
Jan. 13, 2012, 08:51 AM
WOW!

THIS is the kind of press that our sport needs in the main stream media... a feel-good story.

yellowbritches
Jan. 13, 2012, 09:05 AM
Very well done and well written. :yes:

IFG
Jan. 13, 2012, 09:17 AM
They are on the FRONT PAGE of the Providence print paper. Pretty impressive!

asterix
Jan. 13, 2012, 10:03 AM
It was a nice article (although the use of the word "stablehand" was a little jarring), but did anyone else think it was weird that in the accompanying slideshow and video, you never see Neville jump a fence? There's a little trotting around, and lots of "farm" shots, but not a thing about the actual sport he does...

Clearly a deliberate choice but I am at a loss as to why....

Classic Melody
Jan. 13, 2012, 10:17 AM
The NYT probably showed up on a day where Neville's schedule was flatwork. It is interesting to me that they didn't even show a photo of him at Burghley or WEG, though. I'm going to chalk it up to a basic ignorance about horse sports.

The article was nice but a little disorganized. I was wondering when a large media outlet was going to pick up on this tale. It's great PR for Boyd and for the sport - Neville really is special.

yellowbritches
Jan. 13, 2012, 10:17 AM
I considered it more of a "we're not going to change our horse's routine so you all can get a fun picture" type thing. I guess they could have gotten some pics of him competing, but who really knows why journalists do things the way they do. There is a photo of what looks like Neville being naughty on a gallop with Boyd. Kinda cute.

Backstage
Jan. 13, 2012, 10:19 AM
It was a nice article (although the use of the word "stablehand" was a little jarring), but did anyone else think it was weird that in the accompanying slideshow and video, you never see Neville jump a fence? There's a little trotting around, and lots of "farm" shots, but not a thing about the actual sport he does...

Clearly a deliberate choice but I am at a loss as to why....

I'm off to read the article, but I did take a glance at the photos. They were all taken by the NYT's photog, probably at a farm shoot pretty recently. NYT probably didn't want to pay for the rights to some of the competition/jumping images. Neville is likely coming off his post-Burghley vacation so probably isn't doing much jumping right now.

Equibrit
Jan. 13, 2012, 10:27 AM
"By July, the Martins will know if Neville has earned a spot on the United States team in London, where the Summer Games will commemorate the 100th anniversary of equestrian as an Olympic event."

Reckon ?

JER
Jan. 13, 2012, 11:32 AM
This is the same New York Times which, just yesterday, asked its readers if it should be printing the truth (http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/should-the-times-be-a-truth-vigilante/?pagewanted=all). The readers responded, overwhelmingly, 'YES!' (Good discussion here (http://pressthink.org/2012/01/so-whaddaya-think-should-we-put-truthtelling-back-up-there-at-number-one/).)

So, perhaps to kick off the new truthtelling Times, we get this nice story on Boyd and Neville. :) Hopefully, this story will get to the top of the 'most read' and 'most emailed' lists. They pay attention to that.

Also, if the NYT's paywall causes anyone any trouble, either search for the story via Google News or go here (http://euri.ca/2011/03/get-around-new-york-times-20-article-limit/) to grab the NYTClean bookmarklet, which demolishes the paywall in one click.

:)

riderboy
Jan. 13, 2012, 11:38 AM
This is the same New York Times which, just yesterday, asked its readers if it should be printing the truth (http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/should-the-times-be-a-truth-vigilante/?pagewanted=all). The readers responded, overwhelmingly, 'YES!' (Good discussion here (http://pressthink.org/2012/01/so-whaddaya-think-should-we-put-truthtelling-back-up-there-at-number-one/).)

So, perhaps to kick off the new truthtelling Times, we get this nice story on Boyd and Neville. :) Hopefully, this story will get to the top of the 'most read' and 'most emailed' lists. They pay attention to that.

Also, if the NYT's paywall causes anyone any trouble, either search for the story via Google News or go here (http://euri.ca/2011/03/get-around-new-york-times-20-article-limit/) to grab the NYTClean bookmarklet, which demolishes the paywall in one click.

:)

The truth eh? Slippery little animal, the truth. This article, however, was fantastic. Hard to read, actually, but what a great story.

BaroquePony
Jan. 13, 2012, 11:41 AM
Well written, great story :yes:.

gottagrey
Jan. 13, 2012, 01:05 PM
Any competition photos would be subject to copywright/permission. They also probably thought "stablehand" would be more PC than groom etc. Nice upbeat/uplifting article.

FatDinah
Jan. 13, 2012, 01:15 PM
:mad: Above poster: "Also, if the NYT's paywall causes anyone any trouble, either search for the story via Google News or go here to grab the NYTClean bookmarklet, which demolishes the paywall in one click."

Why is it OK to rip off the Times? Do you think they operate as a charity?

Do you suggest people check out great prices on a Craigslist ad because it is stolen tack?

Ajierene
Jan. 13, 2012, 01:44 PM
:mad: Above poster: "Also, if the NYT's paywall causes anyone any trouble, either search for the story via Google News or go here to grab the NYTClean bookmarklet, which demolishes the paywall in one click."

Why is it OK to rip off the Times? Do you think they operate as a charity?

Do you suggest people check out great prices on a Craigslist ad because it is stolen tack?

An interesting point, considering the issue of internet photography theft that is brought up so often on these boards.

I don't know which side of that fence JER is on, but it does seem odd that stealing from one entity is ok, but not another.

bambam
Jan. 13, 2012, 02:02 PM
uuhmmmm, you can view 20 articles a month for free from any one location/computer on the NYT website, so lets not get sidetracked into an issue which is not really relevant and will likely not be an issue for most COTHers
I thought it was great that the NYT covered it (I was surprised there was no mention of Boyd and Philip going in against the fire marshall's orders to get Neville out- would have thought that would appeal to a reporter doing this kind of story).
It was one of the few articles I have read talking about a horse/rider combo as being Olympic team contenders where I have not rolled my eyes and thought "in their dreams they are in contention" :lol:
It really is a phenomenal story

JER
Jan. 13, 2012, 02:12 PM
I don't know which side of that fence JER is on, but it does seem odd that stealing from one entity is ok, but not another.

The NYT chooses to make its articles available through Google News for free. The paywall is porous on purpose. They have to let you in to see what you're missing. So it's hardly 'stealing' to access content.

The NYTClean bookmarklet is most useful when you've accessed an article via Google news, then you go to page 2 and the paywall screen comes up. The NYT is well aware of this bookmarklet -- which is a very simple four lines of code -- and has done nothing to stop it. (More interestng stuff here (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/12/how-the-nyt-paywall-is-working/).)

It's hard to call it 'stealing' when it's a tool to gain subscribers. Is it 'stealing' when I read a discarded copy at Starbucks? Is it 'stealing' when I pick it up at the newstand and spend 30 seconds reading a column on the sports page? Is it 'stealing' when a friend or colleague sends me an email with an NYT article attached? If it's 'stealing', why does the NYT still allow freeloaders to email stories to a multitude of friends?

I was a print subscriber and a digital subscriber to the NYT for decades. Where I live now, I can't get the print version delivered. The digital version never ran properly (yes -- I had long correspondence with them about this) and was therefore a total waste of money. I do have a pay account for the archive, which I need sometimes for research. In general, I don't read much news from the NYT as their pro-establishment agenda is simply not my cup of tea. I do look at the front page every day, but rarely more, as I like real journalism, not fake WMDs and 'enhanced interrogation methods.'

I do pay the exorbitant subscription fee for my favorite newspaper -- the Financial Times -- even though I know a way around the wall. Most other outlets I like -- the Guardian, the Independent, der Spiegel -- are free or semi-free.

:)