[QUOTE=Lady Eboshi;7177994]
Soooooooo . . . the obvious thing would be for Ms. Flynn and her fellow teamsters to call up the New York Times and ask if anyone would like to do a major FEATURE ARTICLE that would expose for all time the realities of the carriage business and the absurdities pitched by the anti’s. Papers looooove controversy–it’s what keeps readers’ eyes in front of the ads. Get your day in the limelight and correct the record! Most of the “constituents” are reasonable people who are intelligent and well-educated. Show the situation for the money-motivated mess it really is, and a lot of the Earnestly-Concerned will shrug off the next PETA broadsheet. Fight fire with fire![/QUOTE]
Thank you, Lady Eboshi.
I worked with Emily Hager, a top reporter for the NY Times for 8 months, ostensibly on an article that would be a bottom-up exposé , blowing the lid once and for all off the whole RARA/Nislick/Forel scam being perpetrated on both the carriage industry and the public at large.
The morning the article came out (she said it was against ethical concerns to let me see the final product before it was printed), we all woke up late, and I did not have time to turn on the computer before I rushed out the door to drive my daughter to school.
After dropping her off, I stopped at the first gas station and ran inside to buy the paper.
Minutes later, I stood next to the gas pump, crumpled NYT in hand, wailing, screaming, shouting, and crying into the phone, with Emily on the other end.
The article was on the FRONT PAGE, and it was a travesty. NOT an exposé on our enemies as promised, but rather the headline, accompanying photo, and entire text was skewed in the direction of “is this the end of the carriage industry”?
(Emily had used little to NONE of the mountain of evidence I gave her; the only new information she turned up was that the ASPCA had given NYCLASS $450,000 for their campaign against us rather than the $250,000 we knew about.)
Emily was obviously prepared for what she knew was coming from me - she was sheepish and apologetic and very quiet. Her proffered reason for the amazing turn of the article? “I got a new editor 3/4 of the way through, and this is the way he wanted to go.” Yes, you guessed it - the new editor had personal anti-carriage sentiments.
Eight months of my life I emailed, PMed, and spoke on the phone with this reporter almost daily; my industry believed me when I told them something great was coming out of all of this, because I believed Emily. In the end it was just about a big, fat zero. Maybe Emily Hager has Google Alerts for her own name, and will turn up here to confirm my story.