When Equestrian Press Calls Out

The stand Eventing Nation {EN} recently took regarding their contention and action to have the name of the event Plantation Field removed from the competition due to its claimed offensive undertones, made the national news cycle including the NY Times. Contentious rhetoric and actions ensued. 

The owner of the property pulled the lease rather than change the name of the event, which has been on the calendar as a recognized competition for 20 years; Olympic rider Boyd Martin, requested publicly that his image and name be removed from any press at the publication; other publications brandished their swords alongside EN and the equestrian populace came out to voice either their support or boycott of EN and its owner brand and advertisers. 

So in theory September 2020 was the last time equestrians will be invited to gallop along at this fixture, at least as it is now called.

The pulling of media credentials from Eventing Nation's Editor by the competition's management, as a result of the publication's article, was not the first time access has been denied at an event to press as punishment for speaking out and certainly it will not be the last. 

 

I have personally experienced similar access issues to eventing competitions, although in my case for no apparent reason. The property owner that hosted a major cross-country event that cancelled recently after a good run in Dutchess County was extremely hesitant to allow me to cover the competition for this magazine, Catskill Horse. In that case the statement 'came down' to me that I would be allowed to cover the event provided I kept a low profile and did not publish anything negative about the sport of eventing or the competition. I did not attend.

I am not going to delve into the wrongs or rights or moral grounds for the Plantation Field controversy, except to say it could have been better handled better by all parties. The timing of the article and the way the conversation was approached was certainly designed for maximum impact.

I do believe that elitism in equestrian sport, whether perceived or actual, needs to go and that governing entities need to do a better job of developing an inclusive environment for everyone. 

In my opinion the boycott of a publication or company for its views is somewhat inevitable, as in my experience people like to read and hear thoughts and ideas they agree with better than those that challenge their mindsets. That is human nature I suppose. It is a sad reality though. How can we improve life for all when we are afraid to think no further than our own frame of reference and education.

Of course as a publisher and a writer I believe free press is critically important to society and that voicing an opinion or bringing to light options for improving life for all is an essential component of a media professional's job. It was the driving force that guided me to start writing professionally back in 1981, covering events for The Chronicle of The Horse and penning 'how to' articles for the now defunct, Dressage and CT. 

 

 

I also fervently believe that facts should be the guiding principle in all writing, not under researched or ill-informed and errant statements used to promote ignorance or create tensions or unrest.

Media professionals will always be the subject of retaliation. Sometimes petty instances and histrionics but sometimes severe consequences can follow publication of their works.

For event management press is usually highly sought and much desired. It boosts not just the entries and attendance at a competition, it also brings much needed numbers of 'eyes' on the valuable sponsors participation that most venues require to operate. Event planners, hosts and management work hard to bring equestrian competitions to the public eye and try endlessly to support the sport to keep it on the Olympic calendar. Their task is not an easy one by any means.

 

The expression, " All press is good press," is something to think about. I am a PR/Marketing Specialist and in my experience for smaller brands this is the case. For larger brands perhaps not so much. Glean.info covers this topic beautifully. For equestrian events, in particular the dangerous sport of combined training, press can cast an unwanted spotlight on issues with death and disasters on course. Reticence to allow open press access to events held on private property is understandable if the event management team is concerned about a journalist highlighting a negative aspect of the competition, even if it is factual and accurately illuminated.

The name of a venue is a challenging thing to adapt, not least because of the historical factor that may be inherent in the place name. Whether that name be perceived as a negative or positive attribute is a societal moral issue. 

One thing is certain, the freedom of the press to report and do their job is an essential part of the conversation. However, the author must be certain of their facts before they hit send and the topic could have easily been discussed as Boyd Martin's official press suggested, "over a cup of coffee," and after the event had concluded, not just in advance of its date.

Photo Credits: Nikki Alvin-Smith