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

#651 keeppushingurep1

keeppushingurep1
  • Member

  • 192 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 28 October 2010 - 13:29

that 'Massa held the pack' is utter nonsense, as Michael Schumacher was not close enough to even be held back



That is exactly what i thought



Advertisement

#652 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 7,078 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 02 February 2011 - 22:30

I wonder if they'll bring back the wallchart this year.... I so miss that.

#653 BalazsF1

BalazsF1
  • Member

  • 1,019 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 03 February 2011 - 17:51

I come from Hungary. I want to subscribe the nmagazine. Don't you know how much the delivery costs to Middle Europe?

#654 AlanWake

AlanWake
  • Member

  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 23 March 2011 - 22:09

IMHO a picture tells more than a thousand words...

Posted Image

It is not the first time that a British F1 magazine decide on porpuse to ignore Fernando's success. They have done it innumerable times in the past, even before of 2007 when Kimi was the darling of the British Press in that moment. I know you Alonso fans know well what I am speaking about... :wave: I still can't stop to laugh when Autosport claimed that Kimi was the driver of the year AND that the MP4-20 the car of the year in 2005 despite not having won ANY championship :stoned:

Alonso was a very underrated driver after his first championship, no doubt. And it wasn't till after 2006, when people started to take him seriously.

I can understand they put Lewis and Jensen on the cover because they are British and drive for a British Team, Vettel because he is the current world champion, Webber because drives the fastest car, but Rosberg :confused:
Putting Rosberg on the cover instead of Alonso who almost won the title last year and is one of the clear favorites to win the WDC this year, is seriously a joke to me, sorry.

Edited by AlanWake, 23 March 2011 - 22:10.


#655 Watkins74

Watkins74
  • Member

  • 5,819 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 March 2011 - 22:11

^
The guys on the cover wont sell many mags but the free Ferrari poster inside will. :lol:

#656 ferrarijon123

ferrarijon123
  • Member

  • 851 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 23 March 2011 - 22:13

IMHO a picture tells more than a thousand words...

Posted Image

It is not the first time that a British F1 magazine decide on porpuse to ignore Fernando's success. They have done it innumerable times in the past, even before of 2007 when Kimi was the darling of the British Press in that moment. I know you Alonso fans know well what I am speaking about... :wave: I still can't stop to laugh when Autosport claimed that Kimi was the driver of the year AND that the MP4-20 the car of the year in 2005 despite not having won ANY championship :stoned:

Alonso was a very underrated driver after his first championship, no doubt. And it wasn't till after 2006, when people started to take him seriously.

I can understand they put Lewis and Jensen on the cover because they are British and drive for a British Team, Vettel because he is the current world champion, Webber because drives the fastest car, but Rosberg :confused:
Putting Rosberg on the cover instead of Alonso who almost won the title last year and is one of the clear favorites to win the WDC this year, is seriously a joke to me, sorry.

A lot of people think that being the fastest means that they are the best driver. This simply isn't true alonso won the 05 and 06 title through consistency and then nearly the 2010 championship through consistency. P.s Great post mate :up:

#657 puxanando

puxanando
  • Member

  • 3,538 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 23 March 2011 - 23:13

:o it's a 'shame' for british jounalismen....

#658 FenderJaguar

FenderJaguar
  • Member

  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 23 March 2011 - 23:35

He's been on the cover many times. So what if no Ferraridriver is on the cover of a magazine this time.

#659 JSDSKI

JSDSKI
  • Member

  • 1,439 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 23 March 2011 - 23:41

maybe they only have Latin drivers on front of the "Latin" edition distributed in Italy and SA....

Advertisement

#660 KateLM

KateLM
  • Member

  • 2,342 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 24 March 2011 - 01:14

IMHO a picture tells more than a thousand words...

Posted Image

It is not the first time that a British F1 magazine decide on porpuse to ignore Fernando's success. They have done it innumerable times in the past, even before of 2007 when Kimi was the darling of the British Press in that moment. I know you Alonso fans know well what I am speaking about... :wave: I still can't stop to laugh when Autosport claimed that Kimi was the driver of the year AND that the MP4-20 the car of the year in 2005 despite not having won ANY championship :stoned:

Alonso was a very underrated driver after his first championship, no doubt. And it wasn't till after 2006, when people started to take him seriously.

I can understand they put Lewis and Jensen on the cover because they are British and drive for a British Team, Vettel because he is the current world champion, Webber because drives the fastest car, but Rosberg :confused:
Putting Rosberg on the cover instead of Alonso who almost won the title last year and is one of the clear favorites to win the WDC this year, is seriously a joke to me, sorry.

Firstly, this magazine has been out for like a month, why make a fuss now?

And secondly, Rosberg gave them a proper interview for that issue. I don't recall more than a couple of soundbites from Alonso.

#661 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,855 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 24 March 2011 - 07:06

Its funny with the British press because all of a sudden they are accused of not liking Alonso a Spanish WDC and here they are with a German WDC in a beanie taking up most of the limelight on the front page!! :eek:

Inferiority complex?? You have to ask. :wave:


#662 AlanWake

AlanWake
  • Member

  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 24 March 2011 - 07:25

Its funny with the British press because all of a sudden they are accused of not liking Alonso a Spanish WDC and here they are with a German WDC in a beanie taking up most of the limelight on the front page!! :eek:

Inferiority complex?? You have to ask. :wave:


Of course not :wave: I was just stating a FACT IMO.

Anyway, could you give a serious answer please? :)

#663 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,869 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 24 March 2011 - 07:35

It's not really a fact if it's in your opinion.

A lot of things go into the decision making of a magazine cover. Who's been on recently or rather who hasn't been on recently. How who is on the cover affects sales(I've heard Jenson sells a little better than Lewis). Sometimes simple things as who is available for pictures/interviews. That might be why Rosberg is lurking in the background and not Schumacher. Or that Schumacher had at least two F1 Racing covers last year.

But "oh, we don't like X" doesn't play into it.



#664 AlanWake

AlanWake
  • Member

  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 24 March 2011 - 07:50

Maybe you could be right...

I just think they did it mainly because Fernando isn't very popular in the UK.

If Alonso was British you can be sure, he would be there :lol:

Peace :)

Edited by AlanWake, 24 March 2011 - 07:50.


#665 Jackman

Jackman
  • Member

  • 12,833 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 24 March 2011 - 10:48

It's far, far more likely that they didn't put Alonso on the cover because they couldn't get an interview with him for the issue.

#666 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,869 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 24 March 2011 - 10:51

FYI Alonso was the cover for the October 2010 issue.

#667 ryan86

ryan86
  • Member

  • 1,100 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 24 March 2011 - 17:26

On a sort of aside, I notice both Autosport and F1 Racing have had discount tokens recently. However, both were cut outs with articles on the opposite side of the token. Could it not be worked so an advert was on the back of the coupon instead rather than an article?

#668 Brandz07

Brandz07
  • Member

  • 3,219 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 24 March 2011 - 17:34

IMHO a picture tells more than a thousand words...

Posted Image

It is not the first time that a British F1 magazine decide on porpuse to ignore Fernando's success. They have done it innumerable times in the past, even before of 2007 when Kimi was the darling of the British Press in that moment. I know you Alonso fans know well what I am speaking about... :wave: I still can't stop to laugh when Autosport claimed that Kimi was the driver of the year AND that the MP4-20 the car of the year in 2005 despite not having won ANY championship :stoned:

Alonso was a very underrated driver after his first championship, no doubt. And it wasn't till after 2006, when people started to take him seriously.

I can understand they put Lewis and Jensen on the cover because they are British and drive for a British Team, Vettel because he is the current world champion, Webber because drives the fastest car, but Rosberg :confused:
Putting Rosberg on the cover instead of Alonso who almost won the title last year and is one of the clear favorites to win the WDC this year, is seriously a joke to me, sorry.


You've read into this far too much.. how do you know its not because alonso wasnt available to have his photo taken in this shoot? you dont. so quit moaning.

#669 BigWicks

BigWicks
  • Member

  • 750 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 24 March 2011 - 21:45

Autosport actually really good this week? awful tabloid headline on the front cover again but if you ignore that the content is the best its been for years

#670 ArnageWRC

ArnageWRC
  • Member

  • 1,083 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 24 March 2011 - 22:04

Autosport actually really good this week? awful tabloid headline on the front cover again but if you ignore that the content is the best its been for years


Hmm, but compare an Autosport of 10-15 years ago to a current issue. There was more non-F1 stories/ covers. Autosport have also fallen into the trap in thinking F1=Motorsport, which is just reinforced by the general media.


#671 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 24 March 2011 - 22:57

IMHO a picture tells more than a thousand words...

Posted Image

It is not the first time that a British F1 magazine decide on porpuse to ignore Fernando's success. They have done it innumerable times in the past, even before of 2007 when Kimi was the darling of the British Press in that moment. I know you Alonso fans know well what I am speaking about... :wave: I still can't stop to laugh when Autosport claimed that Kimi was the driver of the year AND that the MP4-20 the car of the year in 2005 despite not having won ANY championship :stoned:

Alonso was a very underrated driver after his first championship, no doubt. And it wasn't till after 2006, when people started to take him seriously.

I can understand they put Lewis and Jensen on the cover because they are British and drive for a British Team, Vettel because he is the current world champion, Webber because drives the fastest car, but Rosberg :confused:
Putting Rosberg on the cover instead of Alonso who almost won the title last year and is one of the clear favorites to win the WDC this year, is seriously a joke to me, sorry.


If you seriously believe that the serious British motorsport media dislike Alonso then I suggest you look into the more recent works of Nigel Roebuck, one of (if not THE) most respected and influential current F1 journalist.

#672 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 24 March 2011 - 23:09

It's not really a fact if it's in your opinion.

A lot of things go into the decision making of a magazine cover. Who's been on recently or rather who hasn't been on recently. How who is on the cover affects sales(I've heard Jenson sells a little better than Lewis). Sometimes simple things as who is available for pictures/interviews. That might be why Rosberg is lurking in the background and not Schumacher. Or that Schumacher had at least two F1 Racing covers last year.

But "oh, we don't like X" doesn't play into it.


Well said.

F1 Racing during the Schumacher-Ferrari years was absolutely unbearable for me as a subscriber as he was seemingly on the cover of every second issue for years and years and years. The magazine admitted itself that sales rocketed with him on the cover and plummeted with anyone else, it was a simple fact. I remember them saying that a Hakkinen cover they did following one of his WDCs was one of the lowest sellers in that particular year. In hindsight it was interesting that at the time Schumacher very much held the tabloid-driven role of pantomime-villain that Alonso has since been placed into.....but only in the minds of the tabloids and tabloid readers. Real motorsport followers don't go for that sort of stuff. It's basically utter crap that Schumacher and in turn Alonso was and is hated en-masse in the UK.


#673 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 24 March 2011 - 23:22

Hmm, but compare an Autosport of 10-15 years ago to a current issue. There was more non-F1 stories/ covers. Autosport have also fallen into the trap in thinking F1=Motorsport, which is just reinforced by the general media.

We get the magazine we deserve and if Autosport = F1 it's because that's what Autosport readers want.

#674 PretentiousBread

PretentiousBread
  • Member

  • 2,906 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 April 2011 - 12:46

Was just reading through some of my old issues of F1 Racing from early 2008 and it really is a crying shame the direction the magazine has taken since then. It's still better than it was in late 2008 where it went completely NOTW with shocking magazine design, which would have patronised a Darts monthly subscriber. It's slowly found its way back, but it's still no where near as classy and sophisticated in appearance as it used to be. And it's still an odd concoction of specialist articles which go into extreme detail just to explain how something works in F1, like an engine or an exhaust system which tries to dazzle you with stats and figures which just switch me off completely, but then they ask for token opinions from ex F1 drivers which never offer any insight and are often painfully basic or just lazy cliche's e.g. Jody Scheckter actually saying he thought Hamilton lost the title last year because of the distraction of his girlfriend :drunk: (as opposed to having the 3rd fastest car for the majority of the year?)

It was also pretty silly that they increased the physical dimensions of the magazine, yet haven't used it to fill in any more content but just to use bigger fonts. Even the editor's note is double spaced. They claimed to offer more race stats since the redesign but it's still pretty basic - i'd have liked all the practice times form the drivers including sector times etc.
The old format (pre-mid 2008) was so much tighter and more focused than it is now. Peter Windsor and the old editor (Bishop?) came in for a lot of flak but Windsor was passionate in his articles and he always was insightful, rightly or wrongly in what he wrote. Personally, even though I had to take a lot of it with some salt, I enjoyed reading his take on driving styles, and there is simply nothing like that in the mag nowadays. The only genuine insight I see is Pat Symonds' race reports which refreshingly aren't simply a blow by blow account but usually focus on what's going on behind the scenes and explains the strategic decisions made during the weekend.

Sigh, there are elements of the magazine which I enjoy, but it still doesn't know its identity and takes the 'shotgun' approach as Kar has mentioned in this thread before.

#675 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 01:13

Today Autosport published an article from Andy Purcell about Mclarens new 2012 race car and its innovations on its website, only to pull it after about an hour despite being widely promoted on various media like Twitter.

The article was headed by the line that Mclaren was ready to fight the legality of its car.

It then goes on describing that the new Mclaren will feauture obvious design innovations, wich could possibly attract protest from rival teams.

Mclaren Applied technologies managing director Geoff McGrath describes that Mclaren started behind but historically Mclaren always catches up faster than others.

It ends with McGrath adding that analysis indicated the mp4-26 was superior towards the end of the season, but that this pace was not translated into poles, and that Mclaren thinks Vettels skills made the difference.

Im not sure if I violate copyrights so i wont include a link to one of the various mirrors that has the article, and has created a huge argument on various media why Autosport decided to pull this specific article one day before the launch of the new Mclaren mp4-27.

Im not sure why the article was pulled - none of the autosport writers on twitter comment on it - but it does give a feeling of some strings being pulled to get this story away, because it might not shine a positive light on other aspects of Mclaren, or possible legal issues with the car.

I find it baffling that a big name in motoring sport journalism like Autosport pulled it, whlst knowing the article would still be available on the mirror sites. Its their name.

But its also the name of Andy Purcell, and possibly Geoff McGrath that gets questioned, with some suggesting they will have to answer for these revelations.

I also think this is an attack of the freedom of speech, and free, independent journalism. This is not North Korea. Autosport should be able to publish whatever they want.

The article isnt overly critical at all, and puts some good points forward. If Autosport must pull this kind of articles, how much more doesnt get through the censor?

I think we should support both these guys for just doing their job.

edit: Peter Windsor claims Mclaren put out a statement that the source was not 'bona fide'. I guess that means they called Autosport, and embarrassed their usual very meticulous working methode and high standard of publishing articles by saying whatever McGrath said, wasnt in line with what Mclaren wanted to put out.

#676 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,453 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 02:18

But its also the name of Andy Purcell, and possibly Geoff McGrath that gets questioned, with some suggesting they will have to answer for these revelations.


The perfectly plausible explanation is that the article contained untruths.

Autosport like to maintain a high-standard in terms of news content, and if there were inaccuracies which the content of the piece suggested, then they are more within their rights to pull it. That's not an attack on freedom of speech, that's Autosport avoiding a free-market reaction against them. Wouldn't take long for McLaren to put out a release saying what was said didn't happen with some element of proof, and Autosport would look stupid. Users would go elsewhere for accurate news.

Freedom of speech - yes 100%...but that doesn't mean publishing articles that may not be 100% right is a good way to run a business if that business model relies upon absolute credibility.

Autosport have the freedom to publish... and NOT publish what they want. That's the beauty of freedom.

Edited by rhukkas, 01 February 2012 - 02:21.


#677 ClubmanGT

ClubmanGT
  • Member

  • 1,279 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 01 February 2012 - 02:22

I remember them saying that a Hakkinen cover they did following one of his WDCs was one of the lowest sellers in that particular year.


I have that issue. I believe many motorsport fans would have been put off by the fact Mika appears to be wearing lipstick in his cover shot.

#678 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 02:35

The perfectly plausible explanation is that the article contained untruths.

Autosport like to maintain a high-standard in terms of news content, and if there were inaccuracies which the content of the piece suggested, then they are more within their rights to pull it. That's not an attack on freedom of speech, that's Autosport avoiding a free-market reaction against them. Wouldn't take long for McLaren to put out a release saying what was said didn't happen with some element of proof, and Autosport would look stupid. Users would go elsewhere for accurate news.

Freedom of speech - yes 100%...but that doesn't mean publishing articles that may not be 100% right is a good way to run a business if that business model relies upon absolute credibility.

Autosport have the freedom to publish... and NOT publish what they want. That's the beauty of freedom.


IF the article contained untruths, then McGratch mustv been lying about something. What could it be? That Mclaren will introduce innovation that might attract protest? Very highly likely. That the Mclaren was the best car for pace in the later half of the season? Quite possibly the case, at least in races. That Vettel made the difference in qualifying on some occasions? That also, is more than evident.

What exactly was so untrue, that Mclaren phoned Autosport and ask/threatened to pull the article, saying the managing director of mclaren aplied technologies, is talking out of his backside? Thats one.

And of course Autosport has the right to pull articles when they arent right. But, as I just mentioned, the article itself is pretty harmless except maybe some choice words like Mclaren getting whupped. Well, they were, werent they?

The other point is that Autosport hardly, if ever, pulls articles from their website. I cant remember it. When they publish something, its well thought out, well checked according to their high standards, and then published by their writers on twitter. This went just the same and everybody mentioned this article. And suddenly it gets pulled, in the knowledge it would get reactions like this one, and mirror sites that still show the content.

That is very unlike Autosport.

#679 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,453 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 02:47

IF the article contained untruths, then McGratch mustv been lying about something. What could it be? That Mclaren will introduce innovation that might attract protest? Very highly likely. That the Mclaren was the best car for pace in the later half of the season? Quite possibly the case, at least in races. That Vettel made the difference in qualifying on some occasions? That also, is more than evident.

What exactly was so untrue, that Mclaren phoned Autosport and ask/threatened to pull the article, saying the managing director of mclaren aplied technologies, is talking out of his backside? Thats one.

And of course Autosport has the right to pull articles when they arent right. But, as I just mentioned, the article itself is pretty harmless except maybe some choice words like Mclaren getting whupped. Well, they were, werent they?

The other point is that Autosport hardly, if ever, pulls articles from their website. I cant remember it. When they publish something, its well thought out, well checked according to their high standards, and then published by their writers on twitter. This went just the same and everybody mentioned this article. And suddenly it gets pulled, in the knowledge it would get reactions like this one, and mirror sites that still show the content.

That is very unlike Autosport.


The article suggested quite heavily that McLaren drivers were not up to scratch, and that's somewhat a bizarre comment from a McLaren employee considering they didn't have any RBR data. It is far from 'more than evident' that Vettel made the difference when in comparison to LH/JB in the MP4-26. I think that's quite an implausible situation. Whether there is truth in that statement is totally irrelevant if the person quoted didn't actually say it. Also, the rather provocative language is also bizarre as well. My first instinct when I read the piece was that is was bollocks.

Now, the person quoted may have said these things. The possibility remains however that a mis-communication may have meant he thought he was saying them in confidence and didn't wish for them to be published. If so, in an attempt to keep a good working relationship with McLaren it makes nothing but perfect sense for them to remove these quotes. I'd be pretty pissed if I was quoted having said the immortal words "don't publish this but...."

I see nothing that comes in conflict with freedom of speech or an attack on journalism. Actually I see the complete opposite. I see a business that wants to do things in a manner that it is free to do so. If they have made a mistake they'll pull the article because they are... free.... to do so. You're perfectly free to investigate the manner, start your own blog www.themysteriousdisappearanceof anautosportarticle.com


Advertisement

#680 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 03:02

The article suggested quite heavily that McLaren drivers were not up to scratch, and that's somewhat a bizarre comment from a McLaren employee considering they didn't have any RBR data. It is far from 'more than evident' that Vettel made the difference when in comparison to LH/JB in the MP4-26. I think that's quite an implausible situation. Whether there is truth in that statement is totally irrelevant if the person quoted didn't actually say it. Also, the rather provocative language is also bizarre as well. My first instinct when I read the piece was that is was bollocks.

Now, the person quoted may have said these things. The possibility remains however that a mis-communication may have meant he thought he was saying them in confidence and didn't wish for them to be published. If so, in an attempt to keep a good working relationship with McLaren it makes nothing but perfect sense for them to remove these quotes. I'd be pretty pissed if I was quoted having said the immortal words "don't publish this but...."

I see nothing that comes in conflict with freedom of speech or an attack on journalism. Actually I see the complete opposite. I see a business that wants to do things in a manner that it is free to do so. If they have made a mistake they'll pull the article because they are... free.... to do so. You're perfectly free to investigate the manner, start your own blog www.themysteriousdisappearanceof anautosportarticle.com



The article suggests that Mclaren did not understand why their car could not match Vettel on qualifying day, despite being on par or sometimes quicker than red bull in the race. Various causes are to blame for that; sometimes the drivers didnt get it right, sometimes the team, and sometimes Vettel just pushed his car to the limit and only just beat the Mclaren cars. That is by no means a heavy dismissal of the Mclaren drivers. The only really provocative text may have been using the word whupping, but you could also explain that as light hearted, and by no means ill mannered. He points out that mclaren will now go for a car designed to get more out of qualifying, and wish expressed by both mclaren drivers all season long, so now he lays out what happens, and that the car will get innovative designs that might attract protest. Nothing, nothing wrong with that.

Also, mcGrath has been quoted before in other articles, so Autosport knows who theyre dealing with. And, again, you suggest that they made a mistake by not checking goes againts all the other thousands of articles they havent pulled. They have a huge rep to protect, and now they are in a situation people will ask at any next mclaren item, whether the Woking bureau of censorship has approved these words. The laughing stock of their colleagues, Peter Windsor for one. Whoever is responsible for the pulling of the article: I hope you sleep well.

Edited by TheBunk, 01 February 2012 - 03:05.


#681 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,453 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 03:06

Also, mcGrath has been quoted before in other articles, so Autosport knows who theyre dealing with. And, again, you suggest that they made a mistake by not checking goes againts all the other thousands of articles they havent pulled. They have a huge rep to protect, and now they are in a situation people will ask at any next mclaren item, whether the Woking bureau of censorship has approved these words. The laughing stock of their colleagues. Whoever is responsible for the pulling of the article: I hope you sleep well.


I hope they sleep well knowing they'll have a job in the morning. Quite clearly there was an

1. Error
2. Mis-communication

Both reasons are perfectly acceptable reasons for pulling an article. No bureaus of censorship or laughing stocks or sleepless nights.

Autosport have a fantastic reputation which they've earned over a bloody long time. It isn't a good honourable news story publishing quotes someone may have either

1. not said
2. mis-quoted
3. or not want published


Edited by rhukkas, 01 February 2012 - 03:10.


#682 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 03:10

I hope they sleep well knowing they'll have a job in the morning. Quite clearly there was an

1. Error
2. Mis-communication

Bother reasons are perfectly acceptable reasons for pulling an article.



More likely it was:

1. A genuine interview with a nice, funny and open Mclaren director.
2. That got one of the bosses at Mclaren all upset when it was published.
3. And pressed Autosport so hard they actually did something they never do: pull an article from their website, despite their good business name being smeared and reputation dragged through the gutter, with insinuations and an air their articles and independent publishing can be influenced.



#683 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,453 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 03:22

More likely it was:

1. A genuine interview with a nice, funny and open Mclaren director.
2. That got one of the bosses at Mclaren all upset when it was published.
3. And pressed Autosport so hard they actually did something they never do: pull an article from their website, despite their good business name being smeared and reputation dragged through the gutter, with insinuations and an air their articles and independent publishing can be influenced.


IF Mcgrath was being interviewed as a McLaren representative and he says things McLaren don't like they are free to pressure Autosport. If Autosport feel they'd like to maintain a good relationship with McLaren, again, they are free to take the article off. Now you can get on your high-horse all you want but it doesn't mean Autosport are acting in a dis-honest manner.

All that appears that they've published an article which has jeopardised their relationship with McLaren. McLaren are one of only 12 teams in F1, Autosport can't simply afford to go around annoying them. F1 is far too small for the media to be truly independent. We are literally talking about a few hundred people here that travel the world together. They will be constantly under influence and by and large they provide an excellent fact based news service. I'd rather they keep a working relationship with all teams, than offering often unprofessional opinion pieces that litter the web.

Also, you don't know how many articles Autosport choose not to publish. They could be censoring hundreds of news articles, this one just got out before they realised it was a mistake (which I suspect contained inaccuracies).

Edited by rhukkas, 01 February 2012 - 03:25.


#684 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 03:34

IF Mcgrath was being interviewed as a McLaren representative and he says things McLaren don't like they are free to pressure Autosport. If Autosport feel they'd like to maintain a good relationship with McLaren, again, they are free to take the article off. Now you can get on your high-horse all you want but it doesn't mean Autosport are acting in a dis-honest manner.

All that appears that they've published an article which has jeopardised their relationship with McLaren. McLaren are one of only 12 teams in F1, Autosport can't simply afford to go around annoying them. F1 is far too small for the media to be truly independent. We are literally talking about a few hundred people here that travel the world together. They will be constantly under influence and by and large they provide an excellent fact based news service. I'd rather they keep a working relationship with all teams, than offering often unprofessional opinion pieces that litter the web.

Also, you don't know how many articles Autosport choose not to publish. They could be censoring hundreds of news articles, this one just got out before they realised it was a mistake (which I suspect contained inaccuracies).


That is indeed one of the questions now raised: how many more articles are being manipulated, pre-read, or otherwise prevented from being published by 'the motorsports authority'?

The point of journalism is that its being brought independently, otherwise they might as well call it the mclaren fan club magazine. Even if Mclaren didnt like the publication of a very mild article, they should have had the balls to say no. Now they have a pulled article doing rounds on internet, being pulled from their website. Now there is an article that will always question just how independent and authoritatively exactly is Autosport magazine. Last year they had the balls to burn Mercedes down to the ground, with statements that theyd be 2 seconds off the pace, but this article gets pulled? Even more suggestion there is some bias, and Mclaren can pull strings in Autosport that others cant.

It seems to me McGrath was interviewed just as the article said: the managing director of mclaren aplied technologies, one with a very good view on the design for the new season. Not as the mclaren press spokesman, but as a qualified person giving information how mclaren went about designing the mp4-27. Itll be very interesting what the pre-cooked PR-talks of tomorrow be in line with that story of McGrath.


#685 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,741 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 01 February 2012 - 06:39

That is indeed one of the questions now raised: how many more articles are being manipulated, pre-read, or otherwise prevented from being published by 'the motorsports authority'?

Pfft. You can go back years and find articles in any media you care to mention that are pretty much press releases. Not just F1 either.

#686 NoDivergence

NoDivergence
  • Member

  • 1,862 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 07:56

You still haven't shown proof that it was McLaren who got the article removed, and you still haven't given proof that the article was legitimate and that the interview actually occurred. I stated before and I will state again, the whole article could have been a fabrication. Only Mcgrath and the person who wrote or published the article can tell whether the article is legitimate. You're accusing McLaren without any solid proof and you're continuing to expand on such an assumption. As far as you and I know, Mcgrath doesn't even have anything to do with the design of the MP4-27, he's in an entirely separate division.

#687 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 08:52

Pfft. You can go back years and find articles in any media you care to mention that are pretty much press releases. Not just F1 either.


Except Autosport, whove never done this before.


You still haven't shown proof that it was McLaren who got the article removed, and you still haven't given proof that the article was legitimate and that the interview actually occurred. I stated before and I will state again, the whole article could have been a fabrication. You're accusing McLaren without any solid proof and you're continuing to expand on such an assumption. As far as you and I know, Mcgrath doesn't even have anything to do with the design of the MP4-27, he's in an entirely separate division.



Peter Windsor claims Mclaren issued a statement where theyve said the source wasnt bona fide. Wich is crazy in itself. McGrath is part of the group of people that puts these things on new cars, has been interviewed before by Autosport. There is no reason to assume Windsor (or mcgrath) is lying.

And, again, Autosport doesnt make these kind of errors. Theve never dont this before, pushing a story about mclaren, via all their media canals and writers, and then suddenly pull while knowing very well this wont be buried in the sand, and the article remains available elsewhere.

The story was sound but, like the censor bureau of some communist country, The Great Leader decided against it.

Edited by TheBunk, 01 February 2012 - 09:22.


#688 dank

dank
  • Member

  • 5,191 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:15

At least one good thing came out of this hullabaloo: it proved that Sky Sports have mastered the CTRL+C and CTRL+V keyboard shortcuts.

#689 Stormsky68

Stormsky68
  • Member

  • 1,623 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:23

I know people like to believe in consipracies, the simple fact is we don't know enough to make a sound judgement, and in a democracy that means innocent until proven guilty.

Autosport has it reasons for withdrawing the article and I trust they will be sound ones.

When you consider the recent phone tapping scandel which left journalism tottering on the edge of the precipice of public confidence, Autosport maybe should be applauded for being decisive over their actions and not berrated by conspiracists seeing boogey men in the shadows.

Edited by Stormsky68, 01 February 2012 - 09:26.


#690 artista

artista
  • RC Forum Host

  • 5,299 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:33

At least one good thing came out of this hullabaloo: it proved that Sky Sports have mastered the CTRL+C and CTRL+V keyboard shortcuts.

Okay, now I understand why Pablo Elizalde was so annoyed yesterday evening (he was tweeting about the copy/paste articles).

BTW, Sky has also withdrawn the story.

Edited by artista, 01 February 2012 - 09:33.


#691 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:34

I know people like to believe in consipracies, the simple fact is we don't know enough to make a sound judgement, and in a democracy that means innocent until proven guilty.

Autosport has it reasons for withdrawing the article and I trust they will be sound ones.

When you consider the recent phone tapping scandel which left journalism tottering on the edge of the precipice of public confidence, Autosport maybe should be applauded for being decisive over their actions and not berrated by conspiracists seeing boogey men in the shadows.


Except this is not about the private lifes of people in f1, but a very mild article how mclaren went about to design the 2012 car. And it was pulled after extensive promotion.

The only berration on Autosport, is that they didnt have the balls to stand up for themselves, and show who is the authority here, but apparently are being held ransom to whatever Mclaren wants for some unknown reason. That will taint any future article about mclaren, or any other team. It also casts a doubt about how many articles in the past have been influenced.

Im thinking the tie up in the brdc young driver program/autosport awards might be too much, and/or some severe restrictions in bringing, for instance, todays new mclaren car. Pretty sure Andy Purcell isnt there.



#692 wewantourdarbyback

wewantourdarbyback
  • Member

  • 6,358 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:40

I'd put money on the article being published before it was meant to be and breaking an embargo.

#693 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:41

Okay, now I understand why Pablo Elizalde was so annoyed yesterday evening (he was tweeting about the copy/paste articles).

BTW, Sky has also withdrawn the story.


Incredibble. He says: you shouldnt bite the hand that feeds you. Amazing, since last year they did not just bite the hand, but the whole am of Mercedes with that 2 second off the pace article. Independent journalism for you.

#694 pacificquay

pacificquay
  • Member

  • 1,586 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:45

There has never before been an article on the Autosport website written by an Andy or Andrew Purcell.

I think the most likely explanation here is cock-up.

Maybe Purcell is a kid in on work experience - they gave him an exercise on writing a news story based around an interview (which wasn't real) and somehow this exercise made it on to the site.

I think that is more likely than any of the grand conspiracy theories.

The article under usual circumstances would have been written by Noble or the like.

#695 KateLM

KateLM
  • Member

  • 2,342 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:48

I know people like to believe in consipracies, the simple fact is we don't know enough to make a sound judgement, and in a democracy that means innocent until proven guilty.

Autosport has it reasons for withdrawing the article and I trust they will be sound ones.

When you consider the recent phone tapping scandel which left journalism tottering on the edge of the precipice of public confidence, Autosport maybe should be applauded for being decisive over their actions and not berrated by conspiracists seeing boogey men in the shadows.

This is the most sensible post I've seen on the matter. As for bias, you could probably make a case for Autosport being too close to half of the grid. Two off the top of my head - the real Lotus debacle and Christian Horner always appearing on the preview/review panels. Do we question everything written about them? No, and it would be paranoid to do so. I think it's slightly ludicrous to suggest that McLaren are getting any preferential treatment just because of an award. As the story was pulled I will believe there was something not kosher about it until I see anything to suggest otherwise.

#696 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:48

I'd put money on the article being published before it was meant to be and breaking an embargo.



Thought about that, too. It isnt Autosports style, though, to make these kind of mistakes.

I simply think Autosport is way too tangled up with Mclaren to resist any pressure. They burn Mercedes to the ground, but an issue later, have a small inside story about Mclarens pre-season problems. In 1998 they defend mclarens no race tactics at melbourne, and 4 years later scream hue and cry over the same no race tactics at Austria 2002. Then there are the several, almost annual mclarens masterplan cover storys in years when ferrari 'whupped' their ass. But where happy to laugh at Di Montezemolos remarks about fighting for championships in 1996 and 1997. Its starting to make sense now. I dont mind some bias, but this is very unlike Autosport.

#697 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:51

This is the most sensible post I've seen on the matter. As for bias, you could probably make a case for Autosport being too close to half of the grid. Two off the top of my head - the real Lotus debacle and Christian Horner always appearing on the preview/review panels. Do we question everything written about them? No, and it would be paranoid to do so. I think it's slightly ludicrous to suggest that McLaren are getting any preferential treatment just because of an award. As the story was pulled I will believe there was something not kosher about it until I see anything to suggest otherwise.



You should read Pablo Elizaldes tweets about it. All you need to know how and why this was pulled.

The only good thing is, inside they arent happy about it either. And with all the social media today, and fora like these, they know they wont get away with it. We aint stupid.

Edited by TheBunk, 01 February 2012 - 09:54.


#698 KateLM

KateLM
  • Member

  • 2,342 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:54

Thought about that, too. It isnt Autosports style, though, to make these kind of mistakes.

What, so that means it can never ever happen? :rolleyes:

I don't reckon it was an embargo, but something clearly went wrong and just because Autosport don't usually make mistakes it doesn't mean that they can't. And that's far more likely than a convoluted theory about bias.

EDIT: No, it doesn't tell me everything I need to know about being pulled, you just assume that it fits your interpretation because that suits you. If Autosport got hoaxed with those comments I doubt they'd want to admit it.

As for not getting away with it...well as far as I can tell, the sensible majority don't believe it's a conspiracy theory.

Edited by KateLM, 01 February 2012 - 09:57.


#699 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,794 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:54

The only berration on Autosport, is that they didnt have the balls to stand up for themselves, and show who is the authority here, but apparently are being held ransom to whatever Mclaren wants for some unknown reason. That will taint any future article about mclaren, or any other team. It also casts a doubt about how many articles in the past have been influenced.


One would have to be pretty naive to believe it has ever been different. Motorsport in a way is a closed community, playing independent and investigative wouldn't pay for a publication, they can't afford messing too much with the subjects of their reporting. If a publication would do that, they would find themselves soon enough having to copy news from other sites, cause the communication with the teams would dry out quickly.

I think indeed a miscommunication is most likely the root of this, in that the article somehow side-stepped the normal procedure of approval, before publishing, by McLaren. I don't think the case is too damaging for Autosports reputation, as it was in the end just a press realease, news-style article with a McLaren employee talking. Would have been worse if they were forced to withdraw a commentary by an Autosport writer.

And anyway, the article is still out there for everyone with basic google skills to read. :D

Advertisement

#700 artista

artista
  • RC Forum Host

  • 5,299 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:56

Except this is not about the private lifes of people in f1, but a very mild article how mclaren went about to design the 2012 car. And it was pulled after extensive promotion.

Before you jump into conclusions and accuse people of some nasty things, you should maybe check if that "extensive promotion" you are talking about is done in a manual or an automatic way.
I write in a news site and the tweets are generated in an automatic way in the moment any of us pushes the "publish" button.
When an article is corrected or retired no other tweet will be generated, that's how the thing usually works. I suppose you can write to any of the Autosport guys who tweeted the link and ask them how it really works before you keep accusing thing of several things based on that.

Incredibble. He says: you shouldnt bite the hand that feeds you. Amazing, since last year they did not just bite the hand, but the whole am of Mercedes with that 2 second off the pace article. Independent journalism for you.


So Elizalde wrote something in the past that you didn't like and if you don't like it is because there must be some manipulation intentions from him? Mate, you can end up in front of a judge in my country for happily accusing people of such things.

And, sorry, but I don't understand your logic. So, given that Elizalde allegedly wrote in the past (I don't remember that article so I don't know what was there or not) that Mercedes was 2 seconds off the pace, he doesn't have the right to complain about people plagiarizing what his site publishes? As we say in my country, you are "confusing speed and bacon".