What do horse race journalists think of ‘horse race journalism’? – Poynter

Two competitors, catapulted by pedigree and ambition, are gunning for the big prize. Sprinting through the muck to get there, the final stretch around the bend is in sight — it’s neck and neck — and then — a New York Times/Siena College poll throws the whole race into question.

The 2024 election cycle is underway, and that dirty phrase has already been bandied about: horse race journalism.

Horse race journalism is an old-school term for political reporting that treats minor updates in polling and campaign strategy like play-by-play announcer calls. The approach is criticized for a disproportionate focus on the odds of an election over the actual stakes.

But is “horse race journalism” a fit comparison to actual horse racing journalism?

Poynter reached out to journalists who cover horse racing to get their take on the term, and what reporters covering 2024 can learn from their experience covering high-tension matchups and big-money betting at famous races like the Triple Crown.

(To be fair, the reverse can also be true. MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki, known for his khaki pants and big map, was looped into NBC’s horse racing coverage starting in 2022 because of his work wrangling with high-stakes political odds on election nights.)

“My colleagues who I admire in politics should remember that the rule of thumb in horse racing is ‘nobody knows nothing,’” said Joe Drape, horse racing reporter for The New York Times. “You got opinions, you got information in front of you, you got speculation, but until the race is run, nobody knows who’s gonna win.”

To Neil Greenberg, a staff writer with The Washington Post focused on sports analytics who also covers horse racing, the label “horse race journalism” is a little superficial.

“I get it. It’s a race, right?” he said. “I don’t think it’s derogatory in any way. I can certainly understand the parallels.”

Drape’s definition of horse race journalism?

“You drink mint juleps, you watch a two-minute race, you got 45 minutes to have an epic in miniature,” he said. “Horse race journalism for politics is, ‘Who’s up? Who’s down? Who looks good going into the first turn? Who looks good down the backstretch? Who’s closing quick?’ They’re putting the lexicon of horse racing onto political campaigns.”

Melissa Hoppert, deputy editor for live coverage at the Times who also reports on horse racing, said while horse racing journalism does have some aspects of “horse race journalism,” there’s nuance to both.

“I think there’s value in covering the minute to minute. We live in a 24-hour news cycle, and I just think that’s where we are in the world, whether we’re covering sports or we’re covering politics,” she said. “I see the value in watching trends and data. But also, at the end of the day, you have to step back and look at the big picture.”

Like any sport with a healthy gambling culture, there’s a lot of number-crunching in horse racing journalism. A big part of the beat is rounding up expected winners ahead of the races, with many writers making picks to win.

Greenberg said one difference between “horse race journalism” and the real thing is the sense of responsibility he feels when it comes to recommendations, as real individuals are betting with their own money. He inherited that responsibility from Andrew Beyer, the Post’s longtime horse racing columnist. Beyer created the Beyer Speed Figure, a methodology to compare the speed of thoroughbred racehorses at different tracks and different levels of competition.

There’s a real pressure to make complicated numbers mean something, a stark difference from the murky world of flashy political polls jockeying for attention. That translates into providing as much context as possible behind the numbers.

“If a horse runs a mile in 40 seconds, that’s great,” Greenberg said. “But was he racing against the Secretariat-type horses or was he racing against horses we may see at the local zoo?”

Providing complete context for readers extends beyond number-crunching methodology, and into examining the material costs of the race.

Thoroughbred racehorses “break down” when they suffer a broken leg or fracture during a race, buckling under the strain in full view of an audience that had just been cheering for them.

It’s a grim sight, as the horses are put down, but it’s also an expected part of the sport. But, a high-profile cluster of deaths before, during and after the Kentucky Derby in 2023 led Drape and Hoppert to try to understand what was happening across the horse racing world.

The resulting reporting and documentary, “Broken Horses,” which came out in April, is the product of a year of analyzing confidential documents, covert recordings and exclusive interviews to explain why young horses in peak physical condition break down.

“Something that Joe and I bring to the table is that we’ve been covering horse racing for combined decades,” she said. “We have the historic knowledge that maybe some people don’t have. We try to always add context like, OK, this happened, but here’s why it’s important.”

Heading into the Preakness Stakes, all eyes were on Mystik Dan. Hot off a victory at the Kentucky Derby, Mystik Dan was one-third of the way through a bid for the coveted Triple Crown of thoroughbred racing but was bested by an unexpected rival, Seize the Grey, who came in first and shattered Mystik Dan’s chance for the Triple Crown.

Though Seize the Grey isn’t exactly an underdog, with an impressive pedigree and Racing Hall of Fame trainer, the upset is indicative of what horse racing journalists say is a major difference between their work and campaign trail reporting.

A big critique of “horse race journalism” in politics is the tendency to focus reporting on two candidates chasing each other in the polls, to the detriment of primary contenders and third-party candidates. But in horse racing the underdogs can, and do, win.

“Horse racing journalists are good at giving a spotlight to lesser known participants who have interesting backstories or the potential for a surprise,” Greenberg said. “They dive into these long shots, these horses that on paper may not seem to have a chance, but they bring life to them and the trainers and try to figure out why they’re here, and maybe an angle or two as to why they can win. You don’t really see that in political circles.”

That lesson, to keep an eye out for the long shots, the “dark horses” in a race, could have served more journalists well ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

“Donald Trump was dismissed as someone who had no shot, a total fringe candidate,” Hoppert, the Times editor who also covers horse racing, said. “Then look where we are. But I think some people did have a gut feeling from the very beginning that, ‘Wait, I think this guy is gaining traction.’”