Responding to Risk: Regulation or Prohibition? New Zealand Media Reporting of Thoroughbred Jumps Racing 2016-2018.
Authors: Legg Kylie A, Breheny Mary, Gee Erica K, Rogers Chris W
Journal: Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
Summary
# Editorial Summary: Media Discourse on Jumps Racing Risk in New Zealand New Zealand's jumps racing industry faces persistent tension between welfare advocates and racing proponents, yet public discourse on the sport's continuation remains surprisingly sparse. Researchers analysed media coverage across two seasons (2016–2018) when fatality rates reached 5.8 deaths per 1000 starters, finding that jumps racing articles comprised only 3.4% of all racing coverage, with substantive debate about whether the sport should continue appearing in just 2.9% of those pieces—typically triggered by fatality incidents. The rhetorical analysis revealed a fundamental divide: industry defenders framed jumps racing risks as acceptable and argued that risk mitigation should remain within professional expertise and care structures, dismissing critics as naïve extremists, whilst opponents employed anthropomorphic language attributing horses with inherent rights, positioning the sport as ethically indefensible entertainment. Both positions paradoxically accept that jumps racing carries inherent danger, yet build opposing arguments—regulation versus prohibition—from this shared foundation. For equine professionals engaged in jumps racing, whether as veterinarians, farriers, or coaches, these findings underscore how welfare conversations are shaped less by comprehensive evidence and more by competing frames about acceptable risk; understanding these rhetorical patterns matters when engaging with regulators, clients and the broader public about industry safety measures and their credibility.
Read the full abstract on PubMed
Practical Takeaways
- •Racing industry stakeholders should recognize that public discourse about jumps racing safety is shaped by media framing and emotional appeals rather than detailed risk analysis, requiring more transparent communication of safety data and risk mitigation strategies
- •Policy makers addressing jumps racing regulation must acknowledge the fundamental philosophical divide between industry-based risk management approaches and animal welfare-based prohibition arguments, as both positions are built on shared acceptance of inherent danger
- •Media literacy and engagement with the racing industry may be necessary to ensure fatality data and safety improvements receive sustained coverage rather than episodic attention following accidents
Key Findings
- •Jumps racing fatality rate was 5.8 per 1000 starters during the 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 seasons
- •Jumps racing articles comprised only 3.4% of all racing media coverage, with minimal discussion (2.9% of jumps articles) about continuation of the sport
- •Media coverage of jumps racing was short-lived and predominantly triggered by horse fatality incidents
- •Two opposing rhetorical positions emerged: proponents framed risks as acceptable with industry-led mitigation, while opponents used anthropomorphism to argue all risk was unacceptable and called for a ban