Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

F1 Racing (magazine) and F1 media in general...(merged)


  • Please log in to reply
1079 replies to this topic

#1 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 2,713 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 17 May 2008 - 17:52

I was saddened to see in the new issue of F1 Racing (UK edition on sale yesterday) that there isn't a single mention of Max Mosely other than Frank Williams being asked if he would ever have his photo taken beside Max. (I won't spoil the answer for those who haven't read it yet).

Last month they made an editorial decision to ignore the Mosely scandal, without actually stating why. The reasons seem fairly obvious. As with almost the entire world of motorsport media they seem scared to cover the issue for fear of retribution if (or when as increasingly seems more likely) Max stays in power after June 3rd.

I can no longer look on this magazine as having any journalistic content. Putting aside that over the last couple of years the magazine has become increasingly more like 'Hello' magazine but with F1 drivers, any serious publication should be covering the most serious issue in F1 since the Mclaren/Ferrari Spygate issue. Funnily enough the magazine did cover that story in some great depth. At that time their impartiality could not be in doubt, because the then editor ended up working for Mclaren. With Mosely however they have chosen to bury the story.

Unbelievably this issue spanss the June 3rd date when the World Council will meet to decide Mosely's fate. Or not as the case may be. Just read Mark Hughes article in the current Autosport.

Coming on to the subject of Autosport, I must commend them for continuing to cover the story. I must admit I'm quite surprised. When the story first broke the Autosport website was a bit hit and miss with it's reporting, as in it seemed to be choosing what it did and didn't say. At looked as if Autosport could not decide whether to go with the story or not. They never buried their heads in the sand however, and after a few days the coverage started flowing nicely and I'm glad to say the magazine has followed suit.

Kudos to you Autosport.

F1 Racing, the biggest F1 magazine in the world, meanwhile chooses to pretend nothing has happened or is happening. I assume their biggest hope is that Mosely stays in office, as then they won't ever have to mention it again. The status quo will have been maintained. I wonder however if Max does get the boot will F1 Racing finally start acting not just like adults, but like JOURNALISTS and at least pay lip service to the story. Right now they aren't even doing that.

I wonder if F1 Racing has been bought and paid, literally, by their sponsors perhaps? It's notable that they have some high profile sponsors in that magazine. A lot of nonsense to be honest. How many of F1 Racing's reader will ever actually make it into the 'Amber Lounge'? Probably less than 0.01%, but I bet they pay a lot for their full page adverts in that magazine...

Hmmm.

As a true believer in honest journalism and freedom of speech I am not only saddened and disgusted at F1 Racing's stance on this issue. I don't know what is sadder, the stance or that last month the editor even openly told the readers that this is their stance.

I and several other people I am aware of (and no doubt many others across the UK and across the English speaking countries where it is sold) wrote letters to the magazine complaining of how they are handling this issue. I have subscribed to this magazine since it started, I have been a reader since the good days before Bishop and Windsor took over and destroyed the magazine, I believe I have earned the right to tell them when they are in the wrong. It was no surprise however to see the letters page was, as usual, full of nothing but letters given their utmost praise for the last issue of the magazine. That praise being especially given for the top drivers list they ran in the last issue. Yes...because we don't get to read top driver, or top race, or top track (etc etc) lists every month in some publication or other. Such original content. Oh yes, that and the "What do the buttons on an F1 steering wheel do?" feature. That was really original.

So it seems the current editor is a big fan of Orwell's 1984, but in a way that suggests they got some of their ideas from there.

Do I dare cancel my subscription though? For next month they are promising an amazing new look to the magazine!

I wonder if the current editor and all of the 'journalists' (including Windsor) are going to be fired and replaced by people who actually still believe in journalism and what it stands for, and don't just want to keep getting their free passes into the 'Amber Lounge' and various other freebies....

Big thumbs down to F1 Racing :down:

Advertisement

#2 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 17 May 2008 - 18:06

Do what most of us have done. Stop buying that shitty rag, and pick up motorsport magazine instead.

Roebuck's article on the Mosley issue was first class.

#3 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,423 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 17 May 2008 - 18:10

Originally posted by kar
Do what most of us have done. Stop buying that shitty rag, and pick up motorsport magazine instead.

Roebuck's article on the Mosley issue was first class.


:up:

Although there's so much politics and skeletal-closetry in the Mosley scandal that anyone trying to speculate seriously on the subject will end up looking like an arse. :)

#4 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 2,713 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 17 May 2008 - 18:12

Originally posted by kar
Do what most of us have done. Stop buying that shitty rag, and pick up motorsport magazine instead.

Roebuck's article on the Mosley issue was first class.


Indeed Roebuck's article was outstanding.

I was really sad when he left Autosport, but that actually turned into immense happiness on realising his Motorsport articles run to several pages, not the one page his Autosport article did. True it's only once a month, but there's little better than sitting down to a coffee (or whiskey or beer for that matter) and reading several pages of Roebuck in one sitting. Tremendous guy.

You're right I really need to cancel my F1 sub, but I always have this thing in the back of my mind that I'm going to miss something !!!
to

#5 WACKO

WACKO
  • Member

  • 2,293 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 17 May 2008 - 18:37

It's not surprising that no accredited magazine or website takes a real vicious stance on it. Even the drivers and most team owners distance themselves from issuing their opinions. Max can be a tough one to have against you. There's nothing to gain, everything to lose, how much I feel the freedom of press should be rubberstamped. It is, but people just choose the safe side themselves.

#6 Ligier26

Ligier26
  • Member

  • 256 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 17 May 2008 - 19:52

I cancelled my F1 Racing subscription several years ago and I haven't missed it for a second. Two things did it for me -

1) The same pre-season driver photo shoots endlessly re-hashed as the front cover. Very cheap.
2) Bishop's interviews, interspersed with bracketed 'and I'm thinking that so-and-so is thinking this-or-that', like anyone gives a shit about his never-was 'insight'.

Piss poor in the extreme... and apparently it's even worse now!

#7 Chiara

Chiara
  • Member

  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 17 May 2008 - 20:34

Originally posted by WACKO
It's not surprising that no accredited magazine or website takes a real vicious stance on it. Even the drivers and most team owners distance themselves from issuing their opinions. Max can be a tough one to have against you. There's nothing to gain, everything to lose, how much I feel the freedom of press should be rubberstamped. It is, but people just choose the safe side themselves.


But even most F1 websites have reported the comments on various sides without necessarily nailing any colours to any masts. Completely ignoring the subject as if it doesn't exist....isn't exactly addressing the sport and all it's issues really.

I wonder what age they believe is their target audience and if this has any effect on the stories they run?

#8 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 17 May 2008 - 20:51

Bishop's smug self importance in the Schumacher (Ralf) incident was what did it for me.

#9 dank

dank
  • Member

  • 5,191 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 17 May 2008 - 21:00

The May issue of F1 Racing did contain a reason as to why they did not cover the whole 'Spankgate' affair:

I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but I'm a bit bored with orgies. Talking about them. Reading about them, I mean, any new viewers turning into F1 amidst all this Max Mosley stuff must think they've stumbled upon some sort of weird S&M/sporting hybrid, rather than the world's best racing drivers battling it out.

...

Here at F1 Racing, we think you might be a bit bored of orgies too, so we've decided to give it all a miss and concentrate on what really matters: the sport.

Hans Seeberg - Editor

Whilst you could debate if there is any truth in this or not, I have to agree with the statement and say that I too am sick to death of the whole affair and don't want to read about it all the time. If I never have to read another thing about Max Mosley it'll be too soon, but unfortunately there's no getting away from it for now and in a fortnight or so it'll no dobut blow up all over again. Can't wait.

#10 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 2,713 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 17 May 2008 - 23:39

Originally posted by dank
The May issue of F1 Racing did contain a reason as to why they did not cover the whole 'Spankgate' affair:

Whilst you could debate if there is any truth in this or not, I have to agree with the statement and say that I too am sick to death of the whole affair and don't want to read about it all the time. If I never have to read another thing about Max Mosley it'll be too soon, but unfortunately there's no getting away from it for now and in a fortnight or so it'll no dobut blow up all over again. Can't wait.


The point is that it actually is irrelevant whether people are tired of the story (although I fail to see how anyone could be considering the minimal coverage...) but the fact that the biggest F1 magazine on the entire planet chooses to ignore the biggest story in F1 is just incredible and smacks of not wanting to upset the apple cart...for themselves.

Hans Seeberg's statement was utter bullshit anyway. Saying they wanted to concentrate on the racing. That in itself was laughable for that very issue contained lengthy articles on Flavio Briatore's football team, Keke Rosberg driving a rally car on ice (an ex F1 champ in a rally car.....zero relevance to F1), yet another pointless top 100 drivers article (seen it all before, in the same mag, and not exactly current racing...) and another sodding "What the buttons on an F1 steering wheel do" article. Oh yes, and a page about Robert Kubica's diet. **** me....

#11 pjabyrne

pjabyrne
  • Member

  • 113 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 18 May 2008 - 00:47

I too have followed Roebuck to Motorsport mag. Not too keen on the vintage stuff they do but they have enough QUALITY F1 coverage to make the purchase worthwhile.

F1 Racing is a rag...

#12 alfa1

alfa1
  • Member

  • 1,770 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 18 May 2008 - 05:27

I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but I'm a bit bored with orgies. Talking about them. Reading about them...
Hans Seeberg - Editor


Which is a totally invalid reason for ignoring the topic.
Are we supposed then to understand that if Hans Seeberg got bored talking or reading about tyres (or any other topic), then this is a good enough reason to totally expunge any mention of them from the magazine?
Good grief.

#13 Just

Just
  • Member

  • 673 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 18 May 2008 - 05:31

Are there any F1 magazines available here in Australia, other than F1 Racing? I also hate it, not just for the reasons already named, but because it has Peter Windsor's "analysis" of each driver, that goes beyond being ridiculous. But it seems there are no other options available here?

#14 COUGAR508

COUGAR508
  • Member

  • 1,182 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 18 May 2008 - 08:24

When I picked up the issue of F1 Racing in question, I was actually quite relieved that it contained almost no mention of the Mosley affair. I don't think it was a case of ignoring the issue;they possibly calculated that most of their readership would be sick to the back teeth of reading about the scandal.

#15 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 18 May 2008 - 08:42

Originally posted by WACKO
It's not surprising that no accredited magazine or website takes a real vicious stance on it. Even the drivers and most team owners distance themselves from issuing their opinions. Max can be a tough one to have against you. There's nothing to gain, everything to lose, how much I feel the freedom of press should be rubberstamped. It is, but people just choose the safe side themselves.

That sort of cowardice is exactly the surroundings to support and boost Mosleys autocracy.

#16 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,890 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 18 May 2008 - 09:15

To be fair, it's a magazine not a newspaper.

#17 bradleyl

bradleyl
  • Member

  • 188 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 18 May 2008 - 09:39

It's interesting to read this thread and the replies to it; not only for the content, but also for the strength of feeling this issue can elicit.

To my mind (admittedly not a disinterested one in the whole affair), it's slightly contradictory to read on the one hand, complaints about personal opinions dominating (or having, in the past, dominated) the magazine; and on the other, condemnation for not covering a fast-moving news story in a monthly magazine.

The first point I would make is that F1 Racing would have little substantive to add to the reporting that has already been conducted. The facts of the matter, as they stand, are established and everybody is in a state of suspended animation until 3rd June. As such, any reporting on the matter would involve either rehashing facts that have been reported elsewhere (Autosport, autosport.com, both part of the same stable) or adding in a lot of personal opinion. That's no longer the style of our magazine, but is the case for Motor Sport, have have recruited Nigel as a star 'personality' on their writing staff.

Secondly, I would argue the story is too fast-moving for a monthly magazine to cover with any accuracy. The magazine went on sale on Friday having gone to press on the Sunday after Turkey; since then, the letter from Max to the FIA clubs has emerged, as have the details of the FIA's official representative at Monaco, plus the story this morning in the Sunday Times. All of these things place the story in a different light, especially the first-mentioned. We would have missed all of these things in any coverage of the matter; the article would have been the poorer for it, as a result, and we'd no doubt be receiving criticism for out-of-date coverage as a consequence. Furthermore, the story will certainly develop further next weekend in Monaco. As a result, by the Monday afterwards, any coverage we'd published would be completely out-of-date...

In my opinion, the place for breaking news is a website like autosport.com, not a monthly magazine whose aim is to bring you in-depth feature coverage of the sport. And it's fair to assume that people who post here, are also reading the daily news output on autosport.com, or weekly in Autosport.

As for those people who disliked parts of the magazine in the past, let me say it is changing, and we believe it's changing for the better. Take a look, have an impartial read and let us know what you think.

Cheers.

#18 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 18 May 2008 - 09:50

Originally posted by bradleyl

The first point I would make is that F1 Racing would have little substantive to add to the reporting that has already been conducted. The facts of the matter, as they stand, are established and everybody is in a state of suspended animation until 3rd June. As such, any reporting on the matter would involve either rehashing facts that have been reported elsewhere (Autosport, autosport.com, both part of the same stable) or adding in a lot of personal opinion. That's no longer the style of our magazine, but is the case for Motor Sport, have have recruited Nigel as a star 'personality' on their writing staff.

But you still report about race results or driver transfers, even if they have been reported at autosport.com or Autosport before?

#19 bradleyl

bradleyl
  • Member

  • 188 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 18 May 2008 - 10:08

I don't think anybody would suggest you can produce an F1 magazine without race results; that is, after all, what we're all about.

I was making the point that a rolling, changing news story cannot really be covered effectively or comprehensively by a monthly magazine.

Advertisement

#20 LostProphet

LostProphet
  • Member

  • 1,175 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 May 2008 - 10:21

Nice post from Mr Lord there.

I still read F1 Racing. Some of the articles rubbed me the wrong way occasionally, but personally I found the good often outweighed the bad. There again I guess if you're a bit too uptight and holier-than-thou about personal opinion that jars against your own, it could cause problems ;)


The last edition (pre-Monaco) got me annoyed because the price had just gone up and it was probably the skinniest edition I'd had - I finished reading it in half the time that I usually did. The Monaco edition was pretty good though.

I read Autosport.com for the up-to-the-minute facts and figures. This will always outstrip F1 Racing because of the nature of internet publishing.
But I like finding out about the inner world of F1. So what if there's an article about Flavio's football team? It's an interesting read and gives a bit of insight into Flavio the manager. If all you want is facts and figures, then you're an idiot for subscribing to a magazine and then complaining about it.


The only complaint I would have about this month's edition is that the front pages were a little misleading. For example, 'Hakkinnen on his legendary clashes with Schumi' - you'd expect a candid interview delving into their relationship, when in reality it was a one-or-two question bit in an otherwise unrelated interview.

#21 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 18 May 2008 - 10:23

Originally posted by bradleyl
I don't think anybody would suggest you can produce an F1 magazine without race results; that is, after all, what we're all about.

I was making the point that a rolling, changing news story cannot really be covered effectively or comprehensively by a monthly magazine.

I don't think thats a good reason for no reporting at all.

Otherwise you would have to report about the 2008 WDC not before the Brazil GP in November.
Before that the WDC is a rolling, changing news story as well.

#22 bradleyl

bradleyl
  • Member

  • 188 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 18 May 2008 - 10:30

Giacomo, I think that's a slightly puerile answer to be honest. Let me turn the question round - what would you have wanted F1 Racing to report on the issue?

#23 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 18 May 2008 - 10:33

Originally posted by bradleyl
Giacomo, I think that's a slightly puerile answer to be honest. Let me turn the question round - what would you have wanted F1 Racing to report on the issue?

Your reasoning was equally puerile.

And to answer your question: Nothing more than the results of their journalistic investigations.

#24 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 2,713 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 18 May 2008 - 10:41

Originally posted by alfa1


Which is a totally invalid reason for ignoring the topic.
Are we supposed then to understand that if Hans Seeberg got bored talking or reading about tyres (or any other topic), then this is a good enough reason to totally expunge any mention of them from the magazine?
Good grief.


:up:

I'm bored of reading stupid pointless "Top This And That" lists.

I'm bored of reading about "What the buttons on an F1 steering wheel do"

I'm bored of reading articles that have nothing whatsoever to do with F1. Flavio Briatore's football team? Give me a break. I'm a lifetime subscriber currently paying in excess of £4 a month, for an F1 magazine with an article about a football team? I'd love that one to be explained please. I don't care if it's Flavio Briatore. Gerhard Berger owns a haulage company. Are we to expect an exciting article on route planning and mandatory rest-breaks for a driver on his way from Salzburg to Carlisle with a shipment of Goulash?

I don't believe Hans Seeberg's claim, that the topic is being avoided through boredom, for one minute.

#25 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 2,713 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 18 May 2008 - 10:44

Originally posted by COUGAR508
When I picked up the issue of F1 Racing in question, I was actually quite relieved that it contained almost no mention of the Mosley affair. I don't think it was a case of ignoring the issue;they possibly calculated that most of their readership would be sick to the back teeth of reading about the scandal.


Or how about calculating that most of their readership would want to read some quality journalism and a good article on the overall subject?

Well actually...the quality of journalism in that magazine has been at the level of 'Hello' for a couple of years now, so they maybe realised that would be impossible.

Going back to the boredom thing....or being sick to the back teeth....

I'm sick of reading about Gordon Brown but he's in the daily newspapers everyday, because he is current news.

#26 bradleyl

bradleyl
  • Member

  • 188 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 18 May 2008 - 10:45

Puerile was an inflammatory word, apologies. As I've explained, we don't believe the issue can be covered effectively in a monthly magazine given the constantly evolving nature of the issue; we have therefore chosen not to. It's an editorial decision that will please some, displease others I suppose.

#27 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 18 May 2008 - 10:50

Originally posted by bradleyl
Puerile was an inflammatory word, apologies. As I've explained, we don't believe the issue can be covered effectively in a monthly magazine given the constantly evolving nature of the issue; we have therefore chosen not to. It's an editorial decision that will please some, displease others I suppose.

Wow.

So Mr Seeberg wasn't bored about orgies, he just thought his monthly F1 magazine is inapt to report about the biggest story concerning current F1.

#28 WACKO

WACKO
  • Member

  • 2,293 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 18 May 2008 - 10:51

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
To be fair, it's a magazine not a newspaper.


I think you have a point there. F1 Racing is very much a popular magazine with a high extent of feel-good and propagating adoration for the drivers. That is their role and that is why they are valued by the people at the helmet. It's never been known for putting much interest in off-track issues. F1 Racing surely wasn't the one most elaborating on spygate either last year. Second, they have always had strong ties with Max and the FIA, considering the poll and even Max' columns. They definitely don't want to break that chain.

#29 WACKO

WACKO
  • Member

  • 2,293 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 18 May 2008 - 10:53

Originally posted by giacomo
That sort of cowardice is exactly the surroundings to support and boost Mosleys autocracy.


Call it cowardice, but seriously in this area there are far too many dependencies to lose your brain and write whatever comes to your mind. A certain T. Rubython can testify on that one.

#30 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 18 May 2008 - 11:13

Originally posted by WACKO


Call it cowardice, but seriously in this area there are far too many dependencies to lose your brain and write whatever comes to your mind. A certain T. Rubython can testify on that one.

Yeah. Everybody fears ze punishment.

#31 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 2,713 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 18 May 2008 - 11:24

Originally posted by bradleyl
To my mind (admittedly not a disinterested one in the whole affair), it's slightly contradictory to read on the one hand, complaints about personal opinions dominating (or having, in the past, dominated) the magazine; and on the other, condemnation for not covering a fast-moving news story in a monthly magazine.


Bradley, where is the contradiction?

The Mosley Scandal is a fact based story. Why should personal opinions come into your magazines reporting of the issue? F1 Racing didn't even print any kind of timeline of events. That would have been enough. You do realise there are people in the world who choose not to have the internet, or don't buy newspapers everyday, or don't have access to these things or the time to look at them? But the same people may buy F1 Racing and therefore hope to read about certain things in there.

Can you explain to us all please why F1 Racing did cover the Spygate affair in some depth and detail? All the events in that case were old news by the time you printed it, yet you still went ahead and printed it anyway.


Originally posted by bradleyl


The first point I would make is that F1 Racing would have little substantive to add to the reporting that has already been conducted. The facts of the matter, as they stand, are established and everybody is in a state of suspended animation until 3rd June. As such, any reporting on the matter would involve either rehashing facts that have been reported elsewhere (Autosport, autosport.com, both part of the same stable) or adding in a lot of personal opinion. That's no longer the style of our magazine, but is the case for Motor Sport, have have recruited Nigel as a star 'personality' on their writing staff.


The basic reporting of some facts would at least have satisfied people like myself wondering if you have been bought and paid by your advertisers or if you are driven through fear of losing accreditation or perhaps facing some other sanctions when (not if) Mosely stays in office, To take an editorial stance as was taken and inform the readers of such was horrifying for anyone who believes in what the press should be about.

As for the personal opinions you mention. At the time of last months and this months (current) issues you had columns on various subjects written purely from a personal perspective from Peter Windsor, Alan Henry and Eddie Jordan.

Three people, three columns, three opinions. I'm not addressing the future of your magazine, so please don't deflect the attention fom the discussion. That was your two most recent magazines during which time the Mosley scandal had broken. The facts: One magazine, three writers, three opinions.

In that same time the other two most popular F1-related magazines in the UK had the following:

Autosport - Mark Hughes' weekly column. One magazine. One writer. One opinion.

Motorsport - Nigerl Roebuck's monthly column. One magazine. One writer. One opinion.

F1 Racing has carried more personal opinions on it's pages than any other magazine covering F1!

Originally posted by bradleyl


Secondly, I would argue the story is too fast-moving for a monthly magazine to cover with any accuracy. The magazine went on sale on Friday having gone to press on the Sunday after Turkey; since then, the letter from Max to the FIA clubs has emerged, as have the details of the FIA's official representative at Monaco, plus the story this morning in the Sunday Times. All of these things place the story in a different light, especially the first-mentioned. We would have missed all of these things in any coverage of the matter; the article would have been the poorer for it, as a result, and we'd no doubt be receiving criticism for out-of-date coverage as a consequence. Furthermore, the story will certainly develop further next weekend in Monaco. As a result, by the Monday afterwards, any coverage we'd published would be completely out-of-date...


Why do you cover any news stories at all?

The current issue has eight pages devoted to F1 news. I suppose to be fair to F1 Racing, it's 'news' content is utter crap. I mean really, do we need an entire page devoted to Petra Ecclestone being a 'fashion designer'? Do we need two pages devoted to Nick Heidfeld knocking off his front wing during a BMW factory demo? You could have just printed the link to youtube, as you did to other videos on that page. Did we need to see an entire page devoted to a building being named after Michael Schumacher?

Any idiot can see those 'news' stories are simply press-releases you have received that have been expanded into articles and big glossy photos added to fill the rest of the pages. Very poor.

Meanwhile you carried ONE true news story and what was that? Ah yes. Super Aguri. That's done and dusted. It's over. That was covered on TV for two days by ITV. That was covered by Autosport for more than the one week when it was current up to the point F1 Racing went on sale. That was a waste of two pages. Oh and guess what? I was sick of reading the same stuff about Super Aguri by Friday gone. There was no more to be said on it, yet here was two pages of 'news' about it.

You're missing the point though. Questioning why there was no Mosely coverage has nothing to do with the news pages. It is concerned with the features section of the magazine.

But, as we're on the subject, to stress the point about the news...well, F1 Racing's news is always behind the times. I accept that is the nature of the beast when you are running a monthly. But that's why your point about the Mosely story being fluid and therefore not worth of the news pages is nonsense. At least acknowledge that was a wrong move by F1 Racing.

Originally posted by bradleyl


In my opinion, the place for breaking news is a website like autosport.com, not a monthly magazine whose aim is to bring you in-depth feature coverage of the sport. And it's fair to assume that people who post here, are also reading the daily news output on autosport.com, or weekly in Autosport.


Okay then Bradley, I must at this point thank you for coming here to put across F1 Racing's side of the story.

As you are here I would hope you would be kind enough to address some concerns.

Last month Hans Seeberg states in his editorial that the magazine would concentrate on the racing. Why then was that not the case?

It must be said last months issue was fairly packed full of nonsense.

Surely the article about a football team was some kind of joke? See my comments elsewhere about this (referencing Berger's haulage company).

Top 100 drivers - doesn't F1 Racing think this has been done to death? Lists have been the scourge of the 21st century media. Every magazine, every tv station, every media outlet runs these stupid pointless lists. It's flogging a dead horse mate. Even F1 Racing has done this kind of thing in the past. And to be honest other magazines have done the same or very similar lists before and to a much much higher standard than you did last month. The information with the list was very basic. I do acknowledge that you have space constraints, but on the other hand I don't entirely accept that. Every single article in F1 Racing runs with huge space-consuming photos. I'm sure the editor or photo-editor has a balancing act to perform, but it's long been a problem that good articles are ruined by poor layouts. How tired I get of reading in articles in F1 Racing that a certain interview may have taken place over a 3 hour lunch, yet the accompanying transcript probably stretches only to around 10 minutes conversation at most. Yet sure enough, the big photos are always present taking up potentially excellent interview space.

What else did we have....

Two pages devoted to what the buttons on an F1 steering wheel do. Was everyone at the magazine new last month? Everyone just graduated or something? Never read an F1-related magazine before? There must be something that excuses F1 Racing from not realising that article has been done more times than there are buttons on an F1 steering wheel. The irony!

Let's not forget the article about a guy who was WDC a long long time ago driving a rally car on ice. Where was the F1 relevance? The racing relevance? Keke Rosberg was the only link and that was tenuous. John Watson used to road-test road cars for a magazine, but they never pretended it had anything to do with F1.

Originally posted by bradleyl
As for those people who disliked parts of the magazine in the past, let me say it is changing, and we believe it's changing for the better. Take a look, have an impartial read and let us know what you think.

Cheers.


I noticed that mentioned in the current magazine and that's why I am prepared to give the magazine one more month to prove itself before deciding once and for all whether to cancel my sub.

My comments above may sound like I absolutely detest F1 Racing but it's really not the case. There's a reason why I have been subscribing since it started. I still have every issue boxed away and sometimes pull out old issues to read some of the excellent articles run in the past.

My comments here are driven mostly on two things:

1) Mosely and the magazines disgraceful stance on burying it's head in the sand. Pages of personal opinion on the subject are not required or wanted. Pages of top quality journalism and in-depth investigation (as much as is possible in this case) and offering interested parties the chance to read coverage of a non-tabloid nature IS what is wanted. You shouldn't assume that everyone wants to or will read about a subject elsewhere. I'm paying you £4.20 a month for this magazine, that takes about 1 1/2 hours to read maximum. Don't forget consumer choice, I can take that money and go to a movie instead if I choose to do so. If I'm paying for the magazine I want quality inside, not nonsense as above, and I want coverage of the relevant major stories. I await your explanation as to why Spygate was covered in depth but Mosely not mentioned except to say you won't mention it.

2) The general quality of the magazine has been on a decline for say the last two years, but over the last few months the quality has deteriorated horrendously. I have every single issue of F1 Racing and last months was the single worst issue that ever came off the presses.

I hope I am incorrect but it almost seems as if one very good version of the magazine was drawn up that featured all the things I am asking for above including quality Mosley reportage, but at the last moment somebody panicked and said "start again" three days before you went to print, with the result being the magazine full of utter junk last month.

Clearly though F1 Racing acknowledges, to some degree at least, that it is at quite a low ebb at the moment. There is no other reason to get the decorators in, as you are doing in time for next month. It's actually, relatively speaking, not too far in the past since the magazine had it's last big overhaul, resulting in the current sloppy mess.

I look forward to your replies here my friend, and as you have requested I will give F1 Racing one more chance with the next issue. If it's just as bad as recent issues or the quality of the journalism has not gone up a notch or two then I have no qualms about cancelling my sub.

I can see from other comments that on this board alone I am not the only one who has thought that way and indeed many cancelled a long time ago.

I'm sure your syndication figures will tell you the full story. If they look okay then take this thread as at least a small warning, as figures don't tell you everything.

#32 Racer Joe

Racer Joe
  • Member

  • 2,881 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 18 May 2008 - 13:46

Originally posted by bradleyl
I don't think anybody would suggest you can produce an F1 magazine without race results; that is, after all, what we're all about.

I was making the point that a rolling, changing news story cannot really be covered effectively or comprehensively by a monthly magazine.


And what a cop out that is ...

F1 Racing, which I am still subscribing to and have had every single issue since the first one in 1996, have covered many "...rolling, changing news stor(ies) which cannot really be covered effectively or comprehensively...".

I am amazed and somewhat bemused that anyone would imply F1 Racing would wait for any story to unfold before, based on sheer speculation, trying to sell an article on it.

Really, what bullshit. :rolleyes:

I still hang on to my subscription because a) there is usually one good read and b) habit. I have been quite disappointed with the quality in the last few months though.

#33 LoudHoward

LoudHoward
  • Member

  • 1,310 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 18 May 2008 - 14:04

Originally posted by bradleyl
The first point I would make is that F1 Racing would have little substantive to add to the reporting that has already been conducted. The facts of the matter, as they stand, are established and everybody is in a state of suspended animation until 3rd June. As such, any reporting on the matter would involve either rehashing facts that have been reported elsewhere (Autosport, autosport.com, both part of the same stable) or adding in a lot of personal opinion.


Okay, so the story is pretty well settled until 3rd June, fair enough, no need to keep repeating the same news...

Originally posted by bradleyl
Secondly, I would argue the story is too fast-moving for a monthly magazine to cover with any accuracy. The magazine went on sale on Friday having gone to press on the Sunday after Turkey; since then, the letter from Max to the FIA clubs has emerged, as have the details of the FIA's official representative at Monaco, plus the story this morning in the Sunday Times. All of these things place the story in a different light, especially the first-mentioned. We would have missed all of these things in any coverage of the matter; the article would have been the poorer for it, as a result, and we'd no doubt be receiving criticism for out-of-date coverage as a consequence. Furthermore, the story will certainly develop further next weekend in Monaco. As a result, by the Monday afterwards, any coverage we'd published would be completely out-of-date...


Wait? So now the story is moving too fast? The two points you've made seem to be in direct conflict with each other. Pick one eh? :p

#34 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,060 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 18 May 2008 - 14:07

I am not a subscriber and haven't read many issues for some years. What strikes me as odd, reading this thread, is that apparently hans Seeberg gave a reason for not covering the story in his editorial, but bradleyl, that purportedly writes here on behalf of the magazine, doesn't back this stance up, but now gives a totally different reason.

So my two questions to bradleyl, would be:

1) Do you personally agree with Seebergs decision?
2) Why didn't Seeberg put the reasons forwarded by you in the magazine if those were the real ones?

#35 donald29

donald29
  • Member

  • 129 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 18 May 2008 - 14:09

Originally posted by kar
Bishop's smug self importance in the Schumacher (Ralf) incident was what did it for me.


:up: indeed, I really hate Bishop.

He is another Hamilton worshiper (as most of them seem to be in that magazine) and that whole Ralf incident was a disgrace. I have always liked Ralf, but admit he should have gone from Toyota as he wasn't motivated, but Bishop is just an idiot.

#36 bradleyl

bradleyl
  • Member

  • 188 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 18 May 2008 - 14:13

Thanks Imperial, it's interesting to get such a degree of feedback - it shows people care about the magazine, and passionately.

Let me take things point by point, as I think that's the easiest way:

Can you explain to us all please why F1 Racing did cover the Spygate affair in some depth and detail? All the events in that case were old news by the time you printed it, yet you still went ahead and printed it anyway.

You may have noticed that since the April issue, but most fully May, June and onwards, we have a new editor at the magazine - and new staff, including myself. So I can't speak for those who went before. Certainly, F1 Racing in its previous incarnation was a more politicised magazine than it is now, that much I know from having read and worked with it.

The basic reporting of some facts would at least have satisfied people like myself wondering if you have been bought and paid by your advertisers or if you are driven through fear of losing accreditation or perhaps facing some other sanctions when (not if) Mosely stays in office, To take an editorial stance as was taken and inform the readers of such was horrifying for anyone who believes in what the press should be about.

We have not been bought by our advertisers, no. I think the basic point that the editor made in his column was that the politics of F1 are not our focus or what interests us. That goes for the columnists too.

I think your points about last month's articles are the ones I can probably address most easily and directly.

The article about the football team was not a joke, no. It was about taking a major personality from F1, seeing them outside the F1 context, and trying to learn something about him from it. And judging by some of the feedback below, it did exactly that. I am aware that some people react badly when an article is not purely about cars on track, but we believe that our job is to illuminate and tell stories about personality that help enrich our readers' understand of what's happening on the track.

The 100 Greatest list, ah yes. Loved by some, loathed by others and in many ways flawed. But a good discussion point nonetheless, and a debate that many fans have amongst themselves. Uniquely, this one was actually composed by the fans - it's not an editorial team preaching, rather our readers voting for the people they think were the greatest. To my mind, that makes it a lot more interesting and also shows that we our trying to connect with our readers.

Concerning the 3 hour lunches etc..., you'll have noticed there hasn't been a single pic of a journalist in the magazine outside the contribs page since the April issue, and equally no guff about long lunches. That's for a reason. The art/editorial balance is part of the magazine's personality - as you don't like seeing big pictures, so many people do. F1 Racing is a features magazine, and that means a harmony between words and visual.

As for the steering wheel piece, if you're lucky enough to be so close to an F1 team that you know what every button on an F1 steering wheel does, then you're extremely privileged. I know from seven years of F1 PR that any guest who can get close to that part is blown away by its complexity and intricacy. This spread was for that section of our readers; they're not all so privileged.

Concerning the Keke Rosberg article, I think the sport's heritage is a major part of what makes F1 the sport it is. The guy's a world champion, which in my book makes him interesting in his own right; he's the father of a major young talent in the sport, doubly interesting; and it was a chance to see him once again, out of context, away from the paddock, doing something different. Variety is, after all, the spice of life.


I noticed that mentioned in the current magazine and that's why I am prepared to give the magazine one more month to prove itself before deciding once and for all whether to cancel my sub.

My comments above may sound like I absolutely detest F1 Racing but it's really not the case. There's a reason why I have been subscribing since it started. I still have every issue boxed away and sometimes pull out old issues to read some of the excellent articles run in the past.


The comments sound like you very much care about F1 Racing, not that you detest it. The magazine will have a comprehensive new look for the next issue, but the balance we are trying to strike, to make the sport accessible for new readers (yes, they exist) without alienating our current readership, is something that will be honed and refined over the next issues. I would hope that from the issue you mentioned, you enjoyed and learned from articles such as the 'Handmade F1' piece or Peter Windsor's McLaren/Ferrari head-to-head. Equally, in the current issue, I'd hope you enjoy the in-depth analysis of Robert Kubica, the secrets of how to win at Monaco, and the Jenson and Nico interviews, both of which allow these drivers to express themselves in their own words without being suffocated by the journalists. And it's going to continue getting better.

My comments here are driven mostly on two things:

1) Mosely and the magazines disgraceful stance on burying it's head in the sand. Pages of personal opinion on the subject are not required or wanted. Pages of top quality journalism and in-depth investigation (as much as is possible in this case) and offering interested parties the chance to read coverage of a non-tabloid nature IS what is wanted. You shouldn't assume that everyone wants to or will read about a subject elsewhere. I'm paying you £4.20 a month for this magazine, that takes about 1 1/2 hours to read maximum. Don't forget consumer choice, I can take that money and go to a movie instead if I choose to do so. If I'm paying for the magazine I want quality inside, not nonsense as above, and I want coverage of the relevant major stories. I await your explanation as to why Spygate was covered in depth but Mosely not mentioned except to say you won't mention it.

2) The general quality of the magazine has been on a decline for say the last two years, but over the last few months the quality has deteriorated horrendously. I have every single issue of F1 Racing and last months was the single worst issue that ever came off the presses.

I hope I am incorrect but it almost seems as if one very good version of the magazine was drawn up that featured all the things I am asking for above including quality Mosley reportage, but at the last moment somebody panicked and said "start again" three days before you went to print, with the result being the magazine full of utter junk last month.


Far from it - and once again, I'd dispute the idea that the magazine was full of 'utter junk'. Equally, while you have written at length about the issue's defects, LostProphet enjoyed it; it's 50-50 in terms of feedback so far. To suggest that the magazine represented a mere three days' work is pretty rude; a lot more time and effort went into it than that.

However, we're well aware that consumers can vote with their feet, and will do so when they see fit. The decision not to try and hit the moving target of the Mosley affair was taken and we will stand by it; no amount of internet Forum debate will change that.

I hope you feel that the future issues contain and reflect the quality you're looking for. We're certainly happy with the direction in which you're headed, and much other feedback supports us in that view.

Cheers

#37 donald29

donald29
  • Member

  • 129 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 18 May 2008 - 14:13

Originally posted by Racer Joe

I still hang on to my subscription because a) there is usually one good read and b) habit. I have been quite disappointed with the quality in the last few months though.


I have subscirbed since the end of 2000 (I am 16, so have read it since I was quite young) and agree with you 100% there.

Althought alot of the content angers me, and it can be weak, it is habit that I continue to read, and there can be some worthwhile articles.

#38 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 23,862 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 18 May 2008 - 14:27

Originally posted by bradleyl
However, we're well aware that consumers can vote with their feet, and will do so when they see fit.

.... as your ABC figures have proved over the past few years :rolleyes:

Considering that F1 Racing is now the only British-based monthly magazine devoted purely to Formula 1 one would expect that it could at least retain the readers it already has ....

#39 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,060 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 18 May 2008 - 14:53

Chiming in again. :)

I don't EVER buy the argument that a magazine should somehow bend over for 'the new readers'.

When I started out taking an interest in motorsport and the magazines I would never be as pompous about myself as to expect them to pander to me. I would try to get myself to a level of understanding the sport and thus get the full benefit of the contents of the magazine in question.

ESPECIALLY in this day and age of the internet and thus instant gratification, any reader that somehow don't get a nuance of an article can find the explanation elsewhere and thus get back to your magazine a better reader. The tradeoff is that you don't alenate your present 'fully fledged f1 fan' by inane repetitions of generally known trivia.

Advertisement

#40 blackhand2010

blackhand2010
  • Member

  • 281 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 18 May 2008 - 14:55

Indeed. I'd been a subscriber up until the end of last year, when I just couldn't really be bothered with what was classed as "journalism" any more. I was never a great fan of Ralf, but Bishop's hatchet job on him was appalling. A rude, arrogant F1 driver? Never heard of one of those before... :rolleyes:
As for Windsor's inept input... well the less said the better...
And as soon as any magazine starts with "Top..." lists (especially with the alarming frequency that F1 Racing seems to have), you know that the editor must have splinters under his finger nails from all that barrel scraping.
I'm afraid it seems to be becoming more style over substance focused, much like the old official F1 magazine used to be and remember what happened to that...

#41 kismet

kismet
  • Member

  • 6,987 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 18 May 2008 - 14:56

I agree that F1 Racing is in no position to compete with daily/weekly print publications or online news outlets when it comes to keeping the public informed about the latest developments in the Mosley case. I understand that their publication schedule places severe limitations on their ability to keep an analytical finger on the pulse of a constantly evolving news story and effectively renders them incapable of providing relevant up-to-date in-depth coverage of the whole affair. I'd go as far as applauding the decision to forgo opinion pieces and attempts at deeper analysis while essential facts of the case still remain unknown. No one purporting to be a responsible journalist should knowingly go off half-cocked, even if "only" in an opinion piece. So, without launching into a rant about the evils of opinion pieces, let's just say I can see why a publication like F1 Racing would establish an editorial policy to keep its Mosley coverage strictly factual and therefore inevitably rather limited.

However, that said, I'm not sure pointedly ignoring the issue is the ideal way to deal with the situation. And a flippantly dismissive "Oh, orgies are so last season - we're a bit bored here already" reeks of intellectual dishonesty because it clearly understates the importance and the implications of "Spankgate" (yeah, a cutesy nickname that perhaps does just the same). Like it or not, and whether it's right or wrong, it's a big story with potentially serious ramifications for those involved, and for the sport as a whole, and to brush it off as if it's nothing more than insignificant human interest fluff about an older gentleman getting it on with five ladies of questionable morals is no longer an option. It may have been when the story originally broke but we're well beyond the point of no return now; the ostrich approach of burying your head in the sand and hoping bad things go away no longer works.

#42 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,060 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 18 May 2008 - 15:01

Originally posted by bradleyl
It was about taking a major personality from F1, seeing them outside the F1 context, and trying to learn something about him from it. And judging by some of the feedback below, it did exactly that. I am aware that some people react badly when an article is not purely about cars on track, but we believe that our job is to illuminate and tell stories about personality that help enrich our readers' understand of what's happening on the track.



errhhhh, doesn't this tell you why EXACTLY you couldn't ignore the Mosley scandal? Substitute Flavio with Mosley and football with hookers and inferred nazi connotations and presto you have a story about:

...a major personality from F1, seeing them outside the F1 context, and trying to learn something about him from it...


YOUR words. Not mine........

#43 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 18 May 2008 - 15:22

Sorry, I like F1 Racing magazine. A lot of it is filler, but I like the pictures, and the interviews.

I also like that there's no mention of the Mosely thing in it.

I like F1 as an escape from "reality".

The world is going crazy; "news" now is mostly either horribly tragic, or salacious - I'm tired of both. It's essentially the End of the World right now, in slow motion. I'd rather not be a rubberneck.

News in F1 is that Trulli topped the chart at Paul Ricard, or that Williams has a new wing coming out, or some such.

I blame Max for not seeing a real race in 2005, and wasting a lot of money in the process. But I'm not interested in his personal life, or who polishes Bernie's Maybach (whatever that means) or who Flavio is dating.

#44 Eau Red

Eau Red
  • Member

  • 500 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 18 May 2008 - 15:49

Magazines in general have been hurt by the internet. We pick up a copy of F1 Racing having already watched the race on TV, followed the live timing on the F1 website, read Craig's technical analysis, the race analysis, the weekly grapevine, Ed Gormon's MaxBlog, and browsed a hundred photos of the latest hole in the Ferrari's nose. So the magazine needs to offer something different.

I've seen other magazines adapt successfully to this "new era," and others try things that didn't work out. I think Velo News (a US cycling magazine.) provides a good model. They've shortened their coverage of race details & focused on more in-depth analyses of a specific aspect of a race or a team or a rider. They've expanded their technical coverage. And they've increased their number of historical articles. It's enough that I've kept subscribing, even though I have access to every cycling website out there, & I pick up my issue of Velo News already knowing the results of every recent race. Time Magazine, between the changes they've made to their website & their magazine content, has also done a good job at adapting recently, after nearly going out of business due to their failure to change with the times.

So I'd suggest to F1 Racing that their focus might shift more towards historical articles (interviews with ex-drivers, ex-team owners, reviews of classic races) or technical articles (not engineering-school level, but maybe something like, what's the deal with this J-damper thing, or what is it about Lewis' driving that makes him kill his front tires in Turkey every year). A magazine can also do a better job at presenting graphics & photos than the internet can. I think magazines in general need to focus on what they can offer that's different or better than what we can already get on the internet.

As for the Max scandal, I understand the point that the magazine couldn't keep up with breaking news, at least at first; but it's such a huge story in the world of F1 that it really needs to be dealt with by any serious publication.

#45 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 18 May 2008 - 16:14

Originally posted by bradleyl
I hope you feel that the future issues contain and reflect the quality you're looking for. We're certainly happy with the direction in which you're headed, and much other feedback supports us in that view.

Cheers


Hi Bradley,
First of all thanks for coming onto the forum to discuss the magazine with us.
It is rewarding to have such direct contact with its editorial staff.
I'm sure F1 Racing is taken in various directions for sound logical reasons, thrashed out by your team.
But I'm a subscriber, and have to say the new direction you speak of is making me question how much longer I'll continue. I wasn't a huge fan of seeing Matt Bishop's photo on every page. But I have to say I believe F1 Racing's decision to sidestep the Mosley affair is a huge mistake. Yes, it's a rolling news story, but that didn't stop Motorsport magazine having a decent old crack at it. With columnists like Alan Henry, Peter Windsor you've more than enough firepower to come up with a strong piece I'd have thought.
And more to the point, wouldn't it shift more magazines?
I enjoy the features in F1 Racing, for instance your piece on the construction of Renault exhausts, but I feel the magazine needs to retain an agenda-setting hard nose.
That said, in the grand scheme of things, I've no problem if it's shifting focus to become a much more mass market publication to draw in new readers who perhaps have a more casual interesting in motorsport.
But I'm afraid it'll be at the expense of readers like me.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond.

#46 estoril85

estoril85
  • Member

  • 1,376 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 18 May 2008 - 22:35

sorry bradley, i have every single issue of f1 racing and unfortunately the recent issues have been shit! top 100's in the middle of the season are pretty much unforgivable, (ok in winter when there are no races) it is a shame as the magazine does not need to report on the mosley shenanigans, that is quite rightly for the gutter press and the websites. I am pretty confident that I could produce a much better magazine than what is currently produced and I am a complete amateur with no journalistic experience whatsoever. That is the issue I and I would imagine many others have with F1 racing at the moment. People knock the old F1 magazine but the technical articles under the editorship of dear old tom rubython where in my opinion superb. I liked the interview with Frank Williams in the new issue but again, where is the journalism? those where questions sent in by readers! I was hoping that after the 'bishop' years the mag would head in a new direction 'mega' as matt bishop (who some would say really is a bishop! )would say!

So I await with interest next months relaunch as the new team should be given a chance to find their feet as it where but for my tuppence worth I think a monthly mag should be devoting a fair amount of space to technical innovations from ALL the teams between races, an in depth interview with a f1 driver, an in depth interview with a sponsor/team principal/engineer, nothing about football!!!! a bit of fun here and there some nice pics and the news/results/previews bits and you have a half decent magazine, hardly rocket science innit!!! Oh and get someone 'colourful' to do a monthly column be it ex driver/ team member / promoter/ fan a few forthright views add to the entertainment! a tip - a brundle, irvine, watson or scheckter would all make a good read!

finally every credit for having the bottle to come on here bradley your obviously a good egg

thanks
estoril 85

#47 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 18 May 2008 - 23:04

BPL: glad to hear things are changing at the magazine.

I have to say in its current state its one I don't even read anymore, not even a cursory flick through at the news-stand which even Autosport print warrants.

That said, I know change takes time, I would really love to see a move to more depth. I know the magazine is seeking to be less political - and that is a very good thing - but I would really love to see the sorts of multipage prose we are starting to get in motorsport.

I _love_ the artwork in F1 Racing, I love the parade feature, but I want some meat, I want detail, depth and grit.

Less of the limp wristed trying too hard fluff the sort Windsor dumps out each month. Please remove the sort of 'impact' colloquialism and torturous grammar "Bishop's" magazine seemed to indulge in.

I want a magazine for grown-ups, and some pretty pictures to go with it.

F1 fans now have so much access to information, and such rapid up-to-the minute access to it (of which, actually, you have had not too small a hand in helping achieve) that reading bullshit such as 'heikki kovaleinen needs to improve the speed of his second phase turn in and he'll be a match for lewis' just amps up the cynicism.

I believe the current editor is a dep-editor from 'Nuts' magazine, that is not a great message to dedicated fans to see someone in charge that comes from a background of dumbing everything down to 'd-cups', blonde or brunette.

F1 Racing needs smartening up, it needs to be more high brow in depth (and in plain english, not in self-indulgent, and largely bullshit jargon).

Fans are way more cynical, and knowledgeable than they were when Pork Pie Bishop took a baseball bat to the Magazine's IQ. They need to believe that what they are reading is written in good faith, in plain clear English, and providing depth of analysis that the online competition can't.

Anyway, out of respect for yourself, I'll check out the mag from time to time.

But it simply has to change. The lobotomy performed on it by Bishop in his latter years there really made it the 'rag' I labelled it in the second post.

#48 pottiella

pottiella
  • Member

  • 342 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 19 May 2008 - 01:19

firstly, magazines are such subjective items that I hardly expect there to be largely favourable agreement amongst readers.

The only reason I'm replying to this is that I find it fascinating to see Bradley come in its defence. I realise that it's only natural and to be expected, but I don't think Bradley should be answerable, even if he did practically volunteer by replying of his own accord.

I am no fan of F1 racing, and indeed Autosport isn't all that much better, but perhaps seems it because it is a weekly and therefore content is much more diluted to have a noticeable effect. I'll openly admit that while on occasion I might indulge in an autosport issue for quite superficial reasons, I could only barely bring myself to buy an issue of F1 racing 2 months ago out of curiosity in Bradley's first work. As much as I enjoyed his articles, it wasn't enough for me to part with another fiver the following month, and so it doesn't really say much for the rest of the magazine. I think the whole 'top 100' list put me off as well!

However, restructuring and new faces with new perspectives do show that it IS changing, albeit not as noticeably to those who are critical as they are largely the ones who are being driven away (myself included) and don't take the time to read it. It's not just an overhaul and serious creative re-think the magazine needs, but a fresh campaign to win back the trust and attention of the many they have lost. Perhaps there is a degree of complacency that they can carry on without that because they have enough attention to keep sales going? And of course there will always be a demographic of moronic fans that will be far more entertained by hugely speculative self-important 'journalism' that F1 Racing and Autosport indulge in so much over recent years; only just falling short of being compared to the Daily Mail, which I like to refer to as a glorified tabloid. That might just be the cynic in me though...

In any case, while my opinion is just as inconclusive as any other reader partial to a subjective viewpoint, a widely accepted dissatisfaction suggests that there is clearly a problem at F1 Racing which is unfortunately magnified by the fact it is a monthly magazine and all the challenges that this brings in competing with weeklies.

#49 Racer Joe

Racer Joe
  • Member

  • 2,881 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 19 May 2008 - 03:17

Originally posted by pottiella
firstly, magazines are such subjective items that I hardly expect there to be largely favourable agreement amongst readers.

The only reason I'm replying to this is that I find it fascinating to see Bradley come in its defence. I realise that it's only natural and to be expected, but I don't think Bradley should be answerable, even if he did practically volunteer by replying of his own accord.


I don't think he is answerable either.

In a way it is fairly similar to that editorial comment from Hans Seeberg. It was not necessary for him to mention the Mosley affair at all. It was his prerogative what the editorial direction is. He doesn't have to defend it one way or another to his readership. Yet he provided a reason for the lack of coverage which bordered on absurdity and that is what apparently annoyed people who still care enough about a decent monthly F1 publication.

I can appreciate how hard it is in the present days of saturated internet news to try to flog a decent monthly magazine; trying to strike a balance between satisfying knowledgeable readers and trying to attract a casual sport fan to pick one up off the shelves.

Originally posted by bradleyl
The decision not to try and hit the moving target of the Mosley affair was taken and we will stand by it; no amount of internet Forum debate will change that.


I don't think anyone who has made a comment in this thread actually thinks that anything will change because of forum debate.

I just hope that the decision not to try and hit the moving target of FIA Formula One World Championship is not taken in the near future. :p

#50 bradleyl

bradleyl
  • Member

  • 188 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 19 May 2008 - 09:03

Responding to general comments concerning the Mosley affair, and the apparent contradictions some people have highlighted in what I’ve written…

The basic facts of the story are established: the tabloid revelations and allegations, with a General Assembly to be convened on June 3rd to cover the matter. This is the schema of events, and there’s little to be gained by endlessly repeating it.

Added in to this are the regular developments that alter how the story is perceived, and from which any analysis or ‘call’ must be made. Since the time when we went to press, these have completely changed, most noticeably with the publication of Mosley’s letter to the FIA clubs. Any ‘analysis’ in our magazine would have been made with the assumption that Max was to be received by the Monaco royal family, as that was the state of play last weekend; equally, there was no foreknowledge of Mosley’s letter to the FIA clubs.

Had we produced an article based on those events, I feel confident saying that people would currently be writing ‘those idiots at F1 Racing don’t know what they’re talking about’.

As for why Hans didn’t write at this length in his editorial, that’s because the primary reason for the decision was that there were better things to cover. The explanations I’m providing are secondary factors, and not contradictory to that initial reason.


Jcbc3
I don't EVER buy the argument that a magazine should somehow bend over for 'the new readers'. The tradeoff is that you don't alenate your present 'fully fledged f1 fan' by inane repetitions of generally known trivia.


There’s no suggestion that we are bending over for new readers. Rather, it’s a question of making the magazine accessible – which means no funny jargon, no interjections during interviews, and trying to produce lucid copy that informs all readers, from the dedicated fully-fledged fans to newcomers. For example, we fully expect F1 drivers to be difficult to deal with – after all, they’re paid to drive the cars, not to talk to us. And we don’t expect you to be interested in how we get the interview, rather in the interview itself. I’m a ‘fully-fledged fan’ myself and certainly don’t want to alienate those people.

Jcbc3
errhhhh, doesn't this tell you why EXACTLY you couldn't ignore the Mosley scandal? Substitute Flavio with Mosley and football with hookers and inferred nazi connotations and presto you have a story about : ...a major personality from F1, seeing them outside the F1 context, and trying to learn something about him from it... YOUR words. Not mine.......


The discussion was about the relevance, or otherwise, of a feature about Flavio and his football team to Formula 1. It has not been suggested, to my mind, that Mosley’s activities are irrelevant to F1.

Eau Red
I'd suggest to F1 Racing that their focus might shift more towards historical articles (interviews with ex-drivers, ex-team owners, reviews of classic races) or technical articles (not engineering-school level, but maybe something like, what's the deal with this J-damper thing, or what is it about Lewis' driving that makes him kill his front tires in Turkey every year). A magazine can also do a better job at presenting graphics & photos than the internet can. I think magazines in general need to focus on what they can offer that's different or better than what we can already get on the internet.


Hi Eau Red. Ironically, the historical angle is one that has been criticized by others on this Forum – Keke Rosberg is, for some, irrelevant to modern F1. I quite agree with your points and the blend of new and old, technical and ‘feature’, is what we’re trying to achieve. The June issue does it pretty successfully I think.

Potmotr
The new direction you speak of is making me question how much longer I'll continue. I feel the magazine needs to retain an agenda-setting hard nose.


All I’d say is check out the June issue and see what you think. The decision not to cover the Mosley affair has been raked over sufficiently, so put it to one side, and consider the rest of the magazine in terms of the quality of the articles. There is no radical ‘new direction’ to alienate a current reader, rather some subtle changes in style which we hope make it more readable and accessible for everybody. I hope kar would find the same thing as the points made in that post are similar.

Pottiella

Many of the points you make are similar to those above. In terms of self-important journalism, I hope you’ll find none of that in the current magazine. As for a widely-accepted dissatisfaction, I think it’s true (and hopefully not insulting) to say that a message board of this kind brings out the worst in people; criticism is easier when it’s not done face to face. I would certainly expect the dissatisfied to be more vocal than the satisfied, and the responses here reflect that. Once again, I’d say ‘pick up the magazine, see what you think’. The Monaco issue (June) is another step on the road for the new editorial team, and it’s bigger and better again than the previous issue. In terms of problems being magnified for a monthly magazine, I disagree; it’s a fantastic opportunity to provide coverage that other outlets cannot. But a monthly magazine is not a news website, or a newspaper…

I hope that responds to a fair number of the posts here; any more questions, fire them in!

Cheers