Racing media -- newscorpse monopoly consolidation? - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK harm-plan harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Racing media -- newscorpse monopoly consolidation? - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Racing media -- newscorpse monopoly consolidation?  (Read 994 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5852
O.P. « 2020-Aug-10, 08:17 PM »


Racing media -- newscorpse monopoly being consolidated?


Why would newscorpse fund the promotion of both Racenet and punters.com.au

........... a survey of punters.com.au is being circulated to members ..... https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/RCD2DBC


While you're here, we would be extremely grateful if you could help us out and give us your feedback on the overall Punters experience. The button below will take you to a survey that will take approx. 5 mins to complete. We use this feedback to make improvements to the product that you use and love!

This request followed close on the heels of a predictable  rort -- Race 9 at Flemington on Saturday -- that seems to have passed unnoticed at the newscorpse stable of racing 'writers' pretending to be independent journalists.

........as I see it ............. punters.com.au is about to be 'consolidated' into Racenet ......or, spare us the explanatory tripe, into a newly named site.

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 23067
« 2020-Aug-10, 10:30 PM Reply #1 »
I'm getting more and more convinced that Joe Biden is posting on this forum.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5852
« 2020-Aug-11, 08:53 PM Reply #2 »


Tongue-ties and blinkers fitted to anyone able to speak truth to power

........... consider this for complete and utter bullshit!

......................answer charges under AR228(a),which states a person must not engage in conduct prejudicial to the image, interests, integrity, or welfare of racing, whether or not that conduct takes place within a racecourse or elsewhere.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5852
« 2020-Aug-17, 03:36 PM Reply #3 »


Racing media battle looming

................... newscorpse circles the wagons as Hoss and Co saddles the horses for a ride into town.

An an aspiring start-up in the racing media landscape apparently has newscorpse in a bit of a panic -- recent weeks have seen a flurry of activity to sign up racing media players with gigs on the newscorpse bandwagon.

...... Hoss and Co hoping for a bonanza may be hard pressed to find anyone to help out.

As for competition ----newscorpse does not believe in it ............ it monopolizes.


Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5852
« 2020-Aug-18, 08:25 PM Reply #4 »


............ unnecessary duplication......... a portent of consolidation


As I understand it newscorpse 'owns' both Racenet and Punters.com............... daily news reports on both, sensibly, cover the same ground

.................... how long has one or the other got to live?

It would be different if any of the racing media reporters and dictation takers, but never 'independent investigators', had any freedom to do the frank-and-fearless job that punters are entitled to expect.

......... there is some movement at the racing-media station ........... will Hoss break ranks?


Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5852
« 2020-Aug-23, 08:36 PM Reply #5 »


Is no one from the newscorpse stable of racing media men able to tell the truth about the Moonee Valley track?


Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5852
« 2020-Dec-01, 07:03 PM Reply #6 »

Is newscorpse monopolization of  racing media 'nonsense' gathering pace?


Anyone with an interest in racing industry policy will sensibly keep a keen eye on the way the newscorpse monopoly is managing public attitudes to racing policy issues .......... all under a guise of voluminous empathetic support across the board for racing's battlers.

Any idea that, globally, anyone working for newscorpse is told 'what to write' is nonsense .............. anyone working for newscorpse today, that 'needed to be told today', would not be working for newscorpse tomorrow.

................ nor does the 'always independent' nine-news-network mantra extend to racing industry issues.


RV boss: Time for crowds to return

................ any idea that 'crowds' will return to racetracks on racedays is nonsense ............ the inclination of punters to 'bet from home' will only have hardened during the lockdown ........... being 'on-track' is a serious disadvantage to being well informed.

Canterbury needs to be fixed and it needs to be fixed now

The Canterbury track, like the Moonee Valley track, needs to be closed to racing and both properties sold.

....... the sales proceeds of these inner city properties would fund the proper development of out-of-town tracks ........ but that plan would only work if State racing administrators put a complete stop to the routine rorting of 'standalone' meetings by local administrators .............. delivering rubbish-raffle-racing that defrauds most punters .......... while lining the pockets of fixed-odds  and parasite-TAB operators .....along with rebate-taking syndicates.

.... one can only wonder how newscorpse is extending commercial linkages to 'profiteers'.


Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5852
« 2021-Jan-21, 07:23 PM Reply #7 »


Newscorpse racing-media monopoly ..... Privacy Policy


Both Racenet and punters.com.au now have footnotes on the site inviting consideration of their 'privacy policy'.

Has anyone taken the time,  and applied 'bush lawyer' expertise, to understand what is 'actual' and 'different'?

I guess not .............. so why does newscorpse simply not answer a question arising: what are the risks? ...... is there any reason for members and readers to be alert to newscorpse compromising their privacy?

.............. as we all know ..... it is not reasonable to expect 'ordinary people' to understand the risks, if any, to which they are, by default, agreeing to accept.

[This risk is implicit in all the 'T's and C's' and whatever other 'fine print' we are unable to properly appreciate in lengthy documents called 'product disclosure statements'  ............. one ripper uncovered in a rejected claim for 'burst pipe' damage ...........simply said the policy did not cover 'movement' ............... and the pipe could not have burst unless 'something moved' .........  it was overturned on appeal to the complaints authority .... but not before 3 internal reviews confirmed the decision ............ and this was a major national company.]

 


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap