Given that similar headlines appeared on the Washington Post, LA Times, and CNN websites, I'm guessing that they all received a press release from PETA and decided to go with it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/sports/santa-anita-fatality.html

Leaving aside the issue of whether the death of one horse falls within the scope of "All the news that is fit to print," I could have written everything else in the article without leaving my laptop. Drape got info about the breakdown from the Equibase chart. There is no evidence that he talked to any of the horse's connections, a veterinarian, or anyone from the track.

Why are we still counting fatalities since December? Clearly, the track put new protocols in place since then. Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest to track the fatalities and rate since the new protocols were put in place?

The PETA statement that zero fatalities is the only acceptable rate and suggestion that Santa Anita has bought into that warrants a reality check.

I understand that it may be a legitimate issue whether horse racing should continue in California, and if it goes away, I can live with that, but this article reflects an abhorrent trend in journalism to contribute to polarization rather than add to the knowledge necessary for informed decisions.