With respect to this thread and everything I wrote below, I would like to retract any harsh criticism of jonathan noble and autosport as it seems they have taken note of what I (and am sure others too) have said and edited the 'offending articles' to an appropriate and acceptable level from before.

I'm not getting any particular pleasure out of it, I'm just pleased we were listened to and it was corrected.

If I could, I would modify the title too by adding something like
'retracted'. Nonetheless, I'm happy to unreservedly apologise to jonathan noble if my comments were mistargetted....

Thank you Autosport.

------------------------------

I get the fact Simon Strang wrote this too...but given the consistency with Johnny Noble's articles in the past about Lewis and Fernando, I blame him equally if not more for this....

Today he demonstrated everything I hate about the press and how they spin a story to impose their own biases instead of reporting on something constructively - with absolutely no regard for the implications (inciting hatred by false impression).

After listening to the BBC radio 5 Live chequered flag podcast yesterday, I could forgive Johnny Noble for being sympathetic to Lewis' cause, being English (even though the other 3 on the podcast were too) and completely entitled to have his own opinion on that first corner incident. Pitpass did take a pop at him without mentioning his name, by calling him Lewis Hamilton's Apologist-in-Chief along with the rest of them....which I found amusing.

But his so called 'articles' on Alonso and Hamilton with respect to Alonso's comments on apparently wantingto help massa, really took the biscuit.

I first caught the title "Alonso to Help Massa" - and upon reading the article, it was Alonso (anticipatingly) responding to the inevitable question to explain his earlier comments. He was blunt, and not ONCE said he would help Massa. Instead he said he had his own race to think about:

"But I will do my own job..."

...and that he was not going to interfere with the championship:

"I will not be any key part to the championship, whatever driver wins will win because he did a better job in the last two races. You can take whatever you want from my comment but it is very simple."

...and with respect to 'helping' massa, he clarified his comments to simply be:

"...if we do that and Felipe Massa wins the race and I am second or third, I will be happy for Felipe to take as many points as possible and this is the only approach ."

Alonso went on to say that he'd most prefer Kubica to win (understandably), so Noble went on to change the headline to "Alonso determined to help Hamiltons rivals"... how does he derive that?!

In fact, Alonso goes on to imply that is the TEAM he would wish not to win (though I'm sure he doesn't want Hamilton to win by the same reasoning) - and would you expect any different given his relationship with McLaren? Would Ron Dennis want Alonso to win if he was in a fight with Ferrrari and McLaren were not in it?

"...but when you see the results you prefer some teams to win or some teams to win compared to others"

See the thing about quoting someone, is that unless the writer blatantly lies or truncates a sentence (just picking out certain words that will have maximum effect), they cannot hide the reality of what a person is saying....until they spin it with surrounding inferences in trying to interpret the quote.

Aside from what Noble did, is it such a heinous crime for Alonso to have an opinion and cheer on his friends? I remember in 2006, when Schumi - having gotten up many noses on track over the years - was up against Alonso, many drivers were very open about supporting Alonso...or rather hoping Schumi doesn't win. I remember Mark Webber saying obviously I want Alonso to win or something to that very blunt effect.

What would the alternatives be?

1. I want Hamilton/McLaren to win - err, no chance! Everyone would accuse him of lying, or being sarcastic.
2. I don't care who wins - everyone would say, 'of course he doesn't want McLaren to win!!'....and given how straightforward he's always been, why stop now?

Anyway, back to Mr Noble's shameless stirring.

He then releases the next article - on Hamilton.

Hamilton's response is as you'd expect, given he and Alonso are sitting in the same press conference - diplomatic and dismissive. But Noble does his best to elevate Hamilton's response to a higher, more righteous ground by saying:

Refusing to be drawn any further on Alonso's comments, Hamilton instead praised Renault's up-turn in form, which has resulted in the team winning the last two races.

All fair and good to quote what Hamilton actually said, but it was that surrounding inference that Hamilton was the better man for acknowledging Renault (good on Lewis...but this isn't about Lewis, its about Johnny Noble being a **** (fill those 4 letters in any way you want ;)).

Perhaps Jonathan Noble should consider working for some more suitable gutter tabloid newspaper like the Sun or something...or if he wants to maintain some credibility by association, he could go for the more articulate-yet-equally-tabloid Daily Mail. It would certainly be better for us all for him to leave Autosport rather than insulting the intellegence of its readers.

Forget James Allen; at least we've all established he's a bumbling fool besotted with Hamilton - but with Noble's apparent credibility status, it infuriates me that he should have the power to screw any driver over the way he wishes.

NOTE: This has got NOTHING to do with Alonso OR Hamilton - neither of them have done anything wrong here in my opinion...so I don't want this thread to become yet another sling match.

This is by no means the first time any journalist has done something like this; Lewis and Fernando's comments are continuously messed around with, and in fact both Fernando and Lewis at some point last year (near the beginning of deterioration) accused the press for causing trouble between them when nothing was wrong - just my mirepresenting their comments about each other.

Sadly there is no stopping the press ever from playing 'God' all the time, and screwing up peoples lives (in every section, not just Formula One - where the latter alogn with all celebrities, its about tarnishing a name so easily and making their life a misery for all the public backlash they have to face as a result).

end of rant.

I kind of hear what you're saying, but at the same time Alonso is playing deliberate silly buggers with the press.

He's trying to make a very nuanced point but knowing obviously how the press are going to take it.

Basically Alonso's position is that if Massa is winning the race, and Alonso has the speed to finish second he is 'helping Massa' maximise the damage to Lewis.

What Alonso doesn't say though is if Fernando is 1st and Massa is 2nd if Alonso will pop on his indicator to tell Massa it's safe to pass him.

Yeah, the reporting is shrill and a little bit too much, but if Alonso wants to play that game then I'm not sure we can blame the reporters _too_ much.

And as far as JN is concerned, I'm not sure he's Hamilton's apologist in chief - particularly with the rough-housing he got from McLaren last year. That would be Mr Adam (not Steve because he's already formalised his role with the team) Cooper :-)

Meanwhile at Formula1.com:

I think a lot of people are looking at these quotes and interpreting them the same way Noble is.

Alonso's original remarks about this to AS were translated over here as: "Yes, no doubt, if I can help, I will help Massa," (as written in an Autosport article by Pablo Elizade, not Noble) and if that translation is accurate then it speaks for itself.

Exactly.

Maybe he is playing the game - I mean at the end of Autosports 'straw poll' they say 'try and guess at what point alonso had the biggest grin'....he's clearly playing with the press...

But the press have a resposibility to play fair too. They couldnt have added that 'alonso grinned' or whatever? That is the whole point of reporting something isnt it....expressing what it was like?

Its futile, and not worth it, I know, but Its as good as anything to point out. Pretty shameless I reckon.

This is a fair point to be honest.

Here you go, JN is on top of it :-)

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71441
(near the bottom of the article).

I'm not going to enter the discussion about the report itself, mainly because pottiella's post is lacking respect (to say the least) towards Jon and I'm tired of seeing people who believe they have the right to talk shit about others just because they don't agree with something we have written.

Show us respect and we'll show you respect.

What I'll say, though, is that it's funny to see how people find patterns or bias in completely different stories that, although they have Jon's name, have not been written by him.

To me, it just shows how some people see what they want to see, and this thread's title is a perfect example of that.

well good of you to at least read it.

Please don't try and pin me under the same label as most other posters who complain about what they read very selectively - this is by far the first time I have done so. I have a lot of respect for writers, and wish journalists in general would be a bit less eager to get a reaction (though I appreciate that is the name of the game) out of people rather than report on something without a clear spin on it. No doubt it brings people back to read more, and makes it all the more interesting to read.

What made me respond to it was the absolute disparity between headline and content - the one that catches the eye first is very inflammatory, and the content just undermines it. There's no reasoning to it except to get a reaction, and one at the expense of someone.

It doesn't matter whether its alonso, hamilton, or even sutil who nobody seems to want to write about; its all the same to me that they themselves get frustrated at how the press deal with things. I'm sure Lewis right now would be the first to admit that....but who am I to say what he feels.

As for Jonathan Noble...well if he did not write it, then that is entirely my fault to assume so - and apologies to him if that is the case.

But I would be inclined to say about journalists in general: If you show people respect (instead of undermining their intellegence), we'll respect you....you guys are meant to earn the respect, it doesn't come free from readers.

You guys seem to think you can portray people you write about in whatever way you wish, clearly making up your own mind and if that means undermining them in your portrayal - how is that any more respectiful than the disrespect you think I show Johnny Noble?

I wouldn't keep coming back to autosport if I didn't think it had any integrity...I just wish there weren't lapses like this when it entirely follows the hysteric and irrational response gutter press tend to produce.

Personally speaking, I'm not privy to what happened in the press conference, so I rely upon you guys to give me an objective perspective....if a driver says something I agree or disagree with, then I have never been shy to accept it, whether I like it not. But when it is the writer themselves that are clearly the ones putting a spin on things, that is what infuriates me.

I am entitled to at least that....

Articles with Jonathan Noble's name in it are perfectly ok

Jonathan Noble just redefined unprofessional. This is not his calling. Get a real journalist.

Where do you see a calling?

People were forced to stay on track just to wait for that. That's called a fact.

Or maybe you really think media and FIA officials stay on track past midnight just for fun at every race.

The issue Mr Noble ought to be reporting in is the merits or otherwise of the Williams protest and, in particular, the point made (if any) regarding the diffuser protest.

Whether he felt personally inconvenienced by it or not, whilst a fact, shouldn't really have been a matter worthy of reporting on. The journalist shouldn't be the story.

Have to agree on that point, while I certainly have sympathy with having to stay back late for no particularly good reason, putting the journalists own personal discomfort in what is ostensibly a news story, isn't terribly appropriate and probably pushes the piece closer to opinion rather than news.

Autosport are very, very good at separating the two normally.

But then if I had been up for 19 hours+ and spent all evening kicking it for no reason, I might unleash a little snark in my report too

I think he meant "calling" as in "a special disposition (as if from a divine source) to pursue a particular course; "he was disappointed that he had not heard the Call". This is a term sometimes used to describe certain professions e.g. teachers, doctors, clergy and, yes, even journalists.
(source: http://www.synonym.com/definition/call/ )