Paper refuses to cover rodeo with restrictions

"You only cover us when a spectator gets gored!"

 

I feel sorry for the bulls. They work really hard and now they'll lose their chances for scholarships.

 

the story said the paper covered an incident last year when a bull injured somebody in the crowd i think?

i have mixed feelings about this

the overly long editorial failed to succinctly express precisely how the paper's coverage would be sacrificed. can't imagine they'll get much sympathy from anybody

kind of thinking ... shut up and go cover the damn cowboys

 

And write a story on the mediia wranglers if they are really intrusive/insulting, and true handicaps to doing your job. Or at least an editorial or something, basically do what those who sell ink by the barrel (and don't sell words in cyberspace) do -- get the last word.

 

Whatever the reason, the paper is taking a pretty big stand. Most rodeos like this have a couple of heavyweight local sponsors who like to pressure the local paper to cover it. In a lot of cases, the only reason a local paper gives a rodeo actual coverage is because of the local sponsors dropping a call to the publisher.

 

Solid.

But if there's a junior competition as part of this event, you can be damned sure there are parents who are now having the same worries about their little cowboys and cowgirls.

 

There had to be a reason for a paper to refuse to cover the rodeo? [/dead. to. SC]

 

Just to take a step back: It's rodeo. I know it's on ESPN sometimes, and yes, it can draw a crowd in some parts of this country, but from an ethics standpoint, it's a rung above the Dana White deal a few weeks back.

 

Not too impressed with the way the rodeo organizers are handling things, but if the event needs to be covered I always thought that we had to adjust and work around silly barriers put in our way.
Sounds to me like this is more a convenient excuse for not covering something that the folks who run the paper don't want to cover but they want to blame someone else for their decision instead of accepting responsbility for the actions.
I am not saying it should or shouldn't be covered, but to pout over limitations of access? There are a lot of things that wouldn't get covered if the media chose not to be at an event because it didn't like accommodations provided.

 

Being a rodeo would be a great reason.

 

Kind of tough to adjust and work around the issues when the other party won't even respond to your concerns, much less address them.

 

Really? Here in Redneckistan, they bend over backward for us.

"Do you want your photographer to go out in the arena with the bullfighters?" "Would you like the cowboys to come to you immediately after they leave the arena floor or can you give them a few minutes to cool down?"