Hi,
I'm a susbcriber of Autosport for almost 3 years. I have read old Journals and I perceive a huge change let me say in its editorials. At the past the colums were much more technical, with real new information on it and not just opinions columns.
What I see now is a great deal on defending and highlighting Hamilton's gifts. I can understand that this being an UK media likes the presence and huge success of a British driver, but also must persue an equilibrium. I feel a huge dissappointment when I read Tony Dodgins last column http://www.autosport.com/features/article.php/id/2415 , he construct a topic to highlight his favorite driver and almost destroy another one (Kimi Raikkonen). Reading that column was like reading Manuel Serras' columns on spanish newspapers, absoluty biased. What I expect from a British media, with its country long tradition on Motorsport is much more quality.
As these "journalists" can enjoy access to almost all the F1 personnel; if they want to highlight different drivers techniques, just approached to the engineers and put real info, (maybe he would change his opinion on KR reading Stella comments), but please do not try to mislead readers creating a column about any topic whose final intention is to highlight the writer favorite driver.
Full Version: Biased Columns
The whole point of a column is for a writer to offer his opinion.
Because you don't agree with his opinion doesn't make it biased.
Because you don't agree with his opinion doesn't make it biased.
Funny you should see it that way. I think there is too little editorial opinions being flaunted.
Like all serious papers has an editorial where the papers 'official' stance on any given matter is written. Sometimes, you agree and sometimes you disagree. But it also help you understand the editorial selections in the other articles that the paper carries.
I would have loved to have had an 'oficial' opinion from Autosport on several of the -gates the last couple of years.
Like all serious papers has an editorial where the papers 'official' stance on any given matter is written. Sometimes, you agree and sometimes you disagree. But it also help you understand the editorial selections in the other articles that the paper carries.
I would have loved to have had an 'oficial' opinion from Autosport on several of the -gates the last couple of years.
QUOTE (jcbc3 @ Oct 6 2009, 12:23) 
I would have loved to have had an 'oficial' opinion from Autosport on several of the -gates the last couple of years.
Agreed.
And there's nothing wrong with the Autosport writers supporting British drivers in their opinion pieces.
It's a British publication after all.
Write an unbiased article and submit it to Autosport. Perhaps they will publish it. 
Why yes, you could be a writer!
Why yes, you could be a writer!
Murray Walker has a few columns here and there.
The reason I don't like them is that he doesn't like showing his own colours too much.
I think he should have stronger opinions, he's certainly an authority figure.
The reason I don't like them is that he doesn't like showing his own colours too much.
I think he should have stronger opinions, he's certainly an authority figure.
QUOTE (JML @ Oct 5 2009, 23:13)
Hi,
I'm a susbcriber of Autosport for almost 3 years. I have read old Journals and I perceive a huge change let me say in its editorials. At the past the colums were much more technical, with real new information on it and not just opinions columns.
What I see now is a great deal on defending and highlighting Hamilton's gifts. I can understand that this being an UK media likes the presence and huge success of a British driver, but also must persue an equilibrium. I feel a huge dissappointment when I read Tony Dodgins last column http://www.autosport.com/features/article.php/id/2415 , he construct a topic to highlight his favorite driver and almost destroy another one (Kimi Raikkonen). Reading that column was like reading Manuel Serras' columns on spanish newspapers, absoluty biased. What I expect from a British media, with its country long tradition on Motorsport is much more quality.
As these "journalists" can enjoy access to almost all the F1 personnel; if they want to highlight different drivers techniques, just approached to the engineers and put real info, (maybe he would change his opinion on KR reading Stella comments), but please do not try to mislead readers creating a column about any topic whose final intention is to highlight the writer favorite driver.
I'm a susbcriber of Autosport for almost 3 years. I have read old Journals and I perceive a huge change let me say in its editorials. At the past the colums were much more technical, with real new information on it and not just opinions columns.
What I see now is a great deal on defending and highlighting Hamilton's gifts. I can understand that this being an UK media likes the presence and huge success of a British driver, but also must persue an equilibrium. I feel a huge dissappointment when I read Tony Dodgins last column http://www.autosport.com/features/article.php/id/2415 , he construct a topic to highlight his favorite driver and almost destroy another one (Kimi Raikkonen). Reading that column was like reading Manuel Serras' columns on spanish newspapers, absoluty biased. What I expect from a British media, with its country long tradition on Motorsport is much more quality.
As these "journalists" can enjoy access to almost all the F1 personnel; if they want to highlight different drivers techniques, just approached to the engineers and put real info, (maybe he would change his opinion on KR reading Stella comments), but please do not try to mislead readers creating a column about any topic whose final intention is to highlight the writer favorite driver.
Just to reiterate, as you said it's a column. They're opinion. Tony Dodgins and any other columnist has every right to voice their opinion. Now if the news articles are inserting subjective opinion (which in some cases may not be a problem) I would understand your concern.
Relax.
I think Mark Hughes is a great example. Up until about 2-3 years ago I considered him one of the leading journalists in F1. He was basically a human encyclopedia of the sport and I agreed or empathised with everything he wrote. These days he's a raging Hamilton fanboy and I can barely get through his articles!
The separation of opinion from fact is a very hazy thing in journalism and particularly in the F1 circles, but I believe it is vitally important to distinguish between the official position of the outlet in question, and that of individual writers.
I think Autosport misses on this quite a bit. Look at 'The Weekly Grapevine' by Rencken. What on earth is going on here? It used to be a kind of offbeat, insider view into the goings on in the paddock over a GP weekend, with various tasty soundbites, quotations etc. Recently it has switched over to (fantastic) detailed analysis pieces on major issues and stories, and has often headlined the website. But is it still opinion? Is it the official word from Autosport?
The separation of opinion from fact is a very hazy thing in journalism and particularly in the F1 circles, but I believe it is vitally important to distinguish between the official position of the outlet in question, and that of individual writers.
I think Autosport misses on this quite a bit. Look at 'The Weekly Grapevine' by Rencken. What on earth is going on here? It used to be a kind of offbeat, insider view into the goings on in the paddock over a GP weekend, with various tasty soundbites, quotations etc. Recently it has switched over to (fantastic) detailed analysis pieces on major issues and stories, and has often headlined the website. But is it still opinion? Is it the official word from Autosport?
QUOTE (slideways @ Oct 9 2009, 09:09)
I think Mark Hughes is a great example. Up until about 2-3 years ago I considered him one of the leading journalists in F1. He was basically a human encyclopedia of the sport and I agreed or empathised with everything he wrote. These days he's a raging Hamilton fanboy and I can barely get through his articles!
...or he is reporting it as he sees it.
That Hamilton has been driving exceptionally well at times this year, especially in Singapore?
QUOTE (slideways @ Oct 9 2009, 05:09)
Look at 'The Weekly Grapevine' by Rencken. What on earth is going on here? It used to be a kind of offbeat, insider view into the goings on in the paddock over a GP weekend, with various tasty soundbites, quotations etc. Recently it has switched over to (fantastic) detailed analysis pieces on major issues and stories, and has often headlined the website. But is it still opinion? Is it the official word from Autosport?
It's a column, so it's opinion which may be based on fact or just rumor. However he does a great job of filling us in with interesting things going behind the scenes and it is always fun to wonder how things he predicts/thinks/hears about play out.
However, I will take the opportunity to say that apart from him the other columns are forgettable.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.