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

#701 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 10:00

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


This blatant, after so much promotion? No. It was up for more than an hour.

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


Thing is, they do it with Mercedes, they do it with Ferrari. Then they are apparently not concerned about the relation. Or maybe these teams dont turn the screws as much as Mclaren does. Mercedes gets burned to the ground on the cover, in a time when mclaren was even more at sea. The latter only got a slight mention they were having troubles.




Advertisement

#702 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 10:02

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.


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".



I actually think Elizalde was very straight forward about hat happened yesterday. Kudos.

#703 KateLM

KateLM
  • Member

  • 2,342 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 10:08

This blatant, after so much promotion? No. It was up for more than an hour.

Maybe it took more than an hour for McLaren to notice, given that their PR people had a launch to plan instead of being on Twitter all day. Or alternatively, it took an hour for someone more senior at Autosport to read it and notice there was something wrong. It went up fairly early in the morning, after all, and as pacificquay points out it wasn't written by one of their usual journalists.

Can you point out what this 'promotion' was? As far as I could see, it was mainly non-Autosport journos tweeting about it. Do you mean their journalists tweeting links to it? They always do that, even for rather dull stories. Main spot on the page? That's where most new stories go if there aren't any major ones around.

Do you have any idea how silly things like 'the Woking bureau of censorship' sound?

#704 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 10:16

Maybe it took more than an hour for McLaren to notice, given that their PR people had a launch to plan instead of being on Twitter all day. Or alternatively, it took an hour for someone more senior at Autosport to read it and notice there was something wrong. It went up fairly early in the morning, after all, and as pacificquay points out it wasn't written by one of their usual journalists.

Can you point out what this 'promotion' was? As far as I could see, it was mainly non-Autosport journos tweeting about it. Do you mean their journalists tweeting links to it? They always do that, even for rather dull stories. Main spot on the page? That's where most new stories go if there aren't any major ones around.

Do you have any idea how silly things like 'the Woking bureau of censorship' sound?



Its pretty obvious from what Windsor and Elizalde tweet, that the story went through all the quality checks at Autosport and that Mclaren wanted it pulled. And they got what they wanted.

Just like the bureau of censorship from some communist state would do. And was it an article with hugely sensitive info, that had a very bad reflection? No. It was a very mild article.

Thats what makes this silly. Childish behavior from a real big F1 team. And spineless from Autosport. And, like as65p says, its still out in the open. Everybody can read it on the mirrors.



#705 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,164 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 01 February 2012 - 10:25

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.



If you have a source, and you publish an unwanted conversation off the record with that source, then it might be your source no more. It's not censorship, but acting in own interest.

#706 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 10:30

If you have a source, and you publish an unwanted conversation off the record with that source, then it might be your source no more. It's not censorship, but acting in own interest.


Again, that would imply Autosport made a mistake. They might be biased, and vulnerable to pressure, but they NEVER did that before.

#707 Stormsky68

Stormsky68
  • Member

  • 1,623 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 10:37

Everything you have given us so far Bunk is heresay, he said this so he must be right, she said that so she must be right....

Unless or until Autosport choose to come out with a statement it is nothing more than opinions (to which everyone is perfectly entitled)



#708 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,801 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 01 February 2012 - 10:40

[disclaimer]I don't work for Autosport and have no idea why the article was pulled[/disclaimer]

I don't understand what 'promotion' you think was done. News is pulled by the aggregators not pushed by Autosport simply because people come here for news and it can normally be relied on.

There have been news stories in the past withdrawn or corrected so this is definitely not new to the publication. There are many sound reasons why the article might have been pulled and yes, that includes 'Because Woking Asked Us' but even then if acceding to their request means the journalists maintain relationships and get good access to the team then I believe it is worth it.

I do think this has been handled quite badly though, and Autosport ought to say something considering the furore this has created.

#709 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,248 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 10:46

Again, that would imply Autosport made a mistake. They might be biased, and vulnerable to pressure, but they NEVER did that before.


You mean you never noticed them doing it before and wouldn't of cared either as it's about McLaren? It's common for most websites to pull stories if they are incorrect, correcting errors and publishing actual interviews instead of gutter press ones makes places like Autosport more trustworthy believe it or not. Take off the tin foil hat and you can see how a never before seen journalist, if this Andy Garcell is actually one, may well be a mistake or fabrication.

#710 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,801 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 01 February 2012 - 10:50

Its pretty obvious from what Windsor and Elizalde tweet, that the story went through all the quality checks at Autosport and that Mclaren wanted it pulled. And they got what they wanted.

What would they know about Autosport current practice?

#711 e34

e34
  • Member

  • 718 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 10:52

Or else Autosport is fed up with other sites copying and pasting their features, and decided to post some outlandish interview by a named but unknown reporter, just to catch unawares anybody who rutinely publishes their pieces without authorisation.

Then, either McLaren got pissed up if they were not warned about the operation, and requested the "bait" to be withdrawn, or the interview was withdrawn according to plan and we will see what happens next with the sites that published it.

Alternatively, McLaren PR department lives in lulu-land, and thought that, in this age, you can "unpublish" what has been published in Internet. Whatever, they have now learnt a lesson, I suppose.

#712 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,801 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 01 February 2012 - 10:57

Or else Autosport is fed up with other sites copying and pasting their features, and decided to post some outlandish interview by a named but unknown reporter, just to catch unawares anybody who rutinely publishes their pieces without authorisation.

A nice canary trap! Yeah why not? That must be it.

#713 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 11:02

What would they know about Autosport current practice?


Uhm, last time I checked, Elizalde writes for Autosport? And Windsor is an independent journalist, been around F1 for decades. He brought the story mclaren put out a statement. Check his tl.

Edited by TheBunk, 01 February 2012 - 11:03.


#714 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,392 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 11:05

The new car doesn't appear to have anything clearly questionable legaility wise. Maybe this so-called quote was incorrect and makes the article being pulled perfectly plausible.

Case closed.

Edited by rhukkas, 01 February 2012 - 11:17.


#715 wewantourdarbyback

wewantourdarbyback
  • Member

  • 6,358 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 01 February 2012 - 11:17

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


Everybody makes mistakes.

#716 e34

e34
  • Member

  • 718 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 11:26

A nice canary trap! Yeah why not? That must be it.


Elizalde's tweets (EliGP)

(in Spanish) Frankly, I have no idea who the author is.
(in Spanish) I am baffled by the silence. I'll try to find out (but won't be able to tell anything :p)
(in Spanish) What it proves is that we can make up anything and people will cut and paste it without checking anything.
My tongue hurts a lot. It must be all that biting.
(in Spanish) The reason is not that publication was suspended til tomorrow 12:00
I love that all the sites copying the story decided not to remove it. Guess they are waiting to see what we do next to know what to write
(in Spanish)...No, the question is that they have no resources other than copy&paste
I can't say anything about why it was removed, but I can give my opinion on those judging the decision
Especially if they have sites based on copying our stuff without as much as checking the facts
As they say, you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you..



#717 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,801 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 01 February 2012 - 11:31

Uhm, last time I checked, Elizalde writes for Autosport? And Windsor is an independent journalist, been around F1 for decades. He brought the story mclaren put out a statement. Check his tl.

I know who they are, but your conclusion that the article went through 'all the quality checks' is not supported by them.

edit; e34 above has even set out the relevant tweets.

@e34 Those comments do not suggest that as a source of the story, only a side benefit.

#718 KateLM

KateLM
  • Member

  • 2,342 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 11:57

Again, that would imply Autosport made a mistake. They might be biased, and vulnerable to pressure, but they NEVER did that before.

So what, in 60 odd years they've NEVER made a mistake? I doubt that. In fact, didn't they print a big "exclusive" about Ford/Jaguar staying in F1 a few years back that turned out to be completely wrong? Or something like that?

For what it's worth I agree with Buttoneer that Autosport should clarify why they pulled the article just to put an end to all the speculation. But that doesn't mean I agree with adding 2 & 2 and getting a improbable conspiracy theory. The fact that not even Pablo Elizalde, who works for this website, seems to have heard of the person who wrote the article suggests to me that the mistake is more likely to be on Autosport's side.

#719 KateLM

KateLM
  • Member

  • 2,342 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 11:59

Whoops, double post

Edited by KateLM, 01 February 2012 - 12:18.


Advertisement

#720 e34

e34
  • Member

  • 718 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 12:02

I know who they are, but your conclusion that the article went through 'all the quality checks' is not supported by them.

edit; e34 above has even set out the relevant tweets.

@e34 Those comments do not suggest that as a source of the story, only a side benefit.


I know, and I didn't say that I could prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Autosport was on a fishing trip, but that it was plausible that they were.

IMHO, more plausible than McLaren trying to rectify a mamooth-size blunder (and however you want to spin that "our car was faster than theirs, but our drivers aren't up to scratch agains him" is a giant blunder, specially if you keep your drivers) by obliterating it from Autosport... forgeting that it is up in hundreds of mirrors, and that stirring brown things only spreads the foul smell wider.

Can I take off the tin hat?;)

#721 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,392 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 12:17

Thats what makes this silly. Childish behavior from a real big F1 team. And spineless from Autosport. And, like as65p says, its still out in the open. Everybody can read it on the mirrors.


Quote from deleted article

"There are technical innovations on the car which will be immediately obvious when you see them" and are "getting ready for a fight"

... and surprise surprise there are very little immediately obvious technical innovations on the car that will draw protests. Maybe after extreme study you might find something dodgy, but nothing obvious. So the evidences suggests that the person giving the quote is

1. Uninformed
2. Lying

That also confirms the quotes about Vettel are probably either 1. misinformed 2. rubbish because they were nonsense.

No bureau of censorship, no big conspiracy. Autosport came to a realisation that the article was bogus as proven with today's launch. An example of journalistic integrity.

Edited by rhukkas, 01 February 2012 - 12:20.


#722 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,164 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 01 February 2012 - 12:21

Again, that would imply Autosport made a mistake. They might be biased, and vulnerable to pressure, but they NEVER did that before.


Oh I remember back in the time something similar:

http://forums.autosp...w...c=96523&hl=

#723 artista

artista
  • RC Forum Host

  • 5,266 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 12:41

So what, in 60 odd years they've NEVER made a mistake? I doubt that. In fact, didn't they print a big "exclusive" about Ford/Jaguar staying in F1 a few years back that turned out to be completely wrong? Or something like that?

For what it's worth I agree with Buttoneer that Autosport should clarify why they pulled the article just to put an end to all the speculation. But that doesn't mean I agree with adding 2 & 2 and getting a improbable conspiracy theory. The fact that not even Pablo Elizalde, who works for this website, seems to have heard of the person who wrote the article suggests to me that the mistake is more likely to be on Autosport's side.


Just do add another example, but a much more recent one: a few months ago, Autosport had to correct an article in the rallying section. Mr Evans wrote that Räikkönen had been excluded from the WRC and when he was told that was not correct, he changed headline and content of the article.
In this case, the copy&paste army had already published the incorrect piece of news in their sites and that ended being the version that was easier to find in the internet.

Moral of the story: mistakes happen everywhere, also in Autosport.

Compared to other sites, I find Autosport error quote is quite low, but nobody is perfect. Moreover, for the standard reader, it is difficult to notice or remember an article that has been removed or corrected, unless there is something in that precise article that catches your attention. In my case, I can remember that rallying article pretty well because I actively follow rallying and more or less know the regulations: in the moment I read the headline I knew the article was wrong and would have to be modified. For somebody that doesn't follow rallying so closely... I'm sure almost nobody noticed it had to be corrected.

#724 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 13:02

I know who they are, but your conclusion that the article went through 'all the quality checks' is not supported by them.

edit; e34 above has even set out the relevant tweets.

@e34 Those comments do not suggest that as a source of the story, only a side benefit.


Well, its reasonable to assume whatever Autosport uses to verify and check, was tiocked of before it went up. The promotion part consists of the Autosport writers, automatic or not, all tweet with the link. Ive never seen an article being pulled after that, especially as it was such a mild article, with nothing controversial.

Quote from deleted article

"There are technical innovations on the car which will be immediately obvious when you see them" and are "getting ready for a fight"



That also confirms the quotes about Vettel are probably either 1. misinformed 2. rubbish because they were nonsense.

No bureau of censorship, no big conspiracy. Autosport came to a realisation that the article was bogus as proven with today's launch. An example of journalistic integrity.


But all weve seen, is just a launch car. Last year we had a car with plastic exhaust parts. Its quite possible the good stuff comes on later in testing, and not now.

Im not sure if Autosport loves to invest time and money to have an author call a mclaren director and have him say a few things wich in the end, arent true.

I let some journalist friends of me read it and they cannot see what exactly is the big deal with this article, can you? So he praises Vettel as the factor, so what?

Its a big childish, narrow minded copy cat working of a communist party bureau of censorship. Im amazed these guys just didnt boycot Mclaren and their manipulations over such a simple story but i guess for former said reasons they cant. That Elizadle, and Autosport refuse to comment on the matter, and Windsor saying mclaren statement that it wasnt bona fide should give enough indication who exactly was responsible for pulling that article.

Good luck Mclaren, with your corporate image.


#725 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,447 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 13:14

mclaren .... Mclaren and their manipulations ... Mclaren, with your corporate image.


I feel that all this is saying rather more about you than it is about McLaren...

#726 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 13:23

I feel that all this is saying rather more about you than it is about McLaren...


Thats because you dont want to see an article about mclaren was pulled, and not an article about me.

#727 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,447 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 13:32

mclaren


You are not peeved that an article was pulled (for whatever reason), only that a slighty negative McLaren article was removed. If it had been a negative Red Bull article, say, I suspect you wouldn't be seeing the conspiracy theories you are currently expounding.


#728 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,523 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 01 February 2012 - 13:34

The 'conspiracy theory' would be just as valid if it were Red Bull. If you write something about someone and they don't like it, they will do everything that they can to get it changed or removed. That applies to any website, magazine, or newspaper. And sometimes the subject being written about has the influence to get what they want.

#729 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 13:35

You are not peeved that an article was pulled (for whatever reason), only that a slighty negative McLaren article was removed. If it had been a negative Red Bull article, say, I suspect you wouldn't be seeing the conspiracy theories you are currently expounding.


Perhaps, but as it is, a mclaren article was pulled, so lets focus on that, and not how my reaction would be if a red bull article was pulled. For the record: i wouldv been just as suprised.

I dont see the negativity either. He claims the mp4-26 was superior on pace later in the season. On a number of occasions that was certainly true. How can that be negative?

#730 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,447 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 13:41

The 'conspiracy theory' would be just as valid if it were Red Bull.


I didn't suggest they wouldn't be, I merely suggested that the poster in question may not have seen them if it were.

#731 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,523 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 01 February 2012 - 13:43

I don't know Bunk's forum history or agenda but he is on the right side of this argument in terms of how the media works.

#732 JRizzle86

JRizzle86
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 13:50

Mountain out of a molehill....anyone? anyone?

#733 Wi000

Wi000
  • Member

  • 1,163 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 13:55

The 'conspiracy theory' would be just as valid if it were Red Bull. If you write something about someone and they don't like it, they will do everything that they can to get it changed or removed. That applies to any website, magazine, or newspaper. And sometimes the subject being written about has the influence to get what they want.

Yep and until we get an explanation I'll assume that is what happened with this "Ghost Article".
Not that I expect one will be forthcoming, we're just the people that buy the subscriptions to mag or site.
Why bother? :rolleyes:

#734 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 14:01

Mountain out of a molehill....anyone? anyone?



No! F1 team that tampers with free, independent journalism like were living in some dictator run third world country. Over the most simple, harmless article you could imagine. Thats what it is!

#735 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,392 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 14:03

I dont see the negativity either. He claims the mp4-26 was superior on pace later in the season. On a number of occasions that was certainly true. How can that be negative?


It wasn't superior at all.

Let's look at the facts as of today: The car has nothing obviously breaching the regulations as predicted by the article. That suggests there we at least inaccuracies in the report which fully backs up the theory there was an error within the article. It's a perfectly respectable reason to pull an article, unless you think Autosport should just put out any old rubbish?

We have two scenarios

1. Autosport have made an editorial error with some quotes that appeared to not be totally valid. Could have been said in jest or maybe not said at all. Stuff that occasionally happens in the media. To maintain integrity you must filter the rubbish. Sometimes the filter doesn't catch the rubbish.

2. A McLaren employee states Vettel has god-like driving ability (which he doesn't, no one does) and then follows with saying the new car has radical innovations which will be questionable legally wise.

Scenario 2 is highly unlikely and has been proven not to be the case with today's launch. Scenario 1 is the more likely

Let's not talk about communistic censorship this is nothing of the sort.

Edited by rhukkas, 01 February 2012 - 14:05.


#736 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,523 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 01 February 2012 - 14:07

No! F1 team that tampers with free, independent journalism like were living in some dictator run third world country. Over the most simple, harmless article you could imagine. Thats what it is!


Uhm, it's sports reporting. Even under the best of circumstances we'd struggle to call it journalism. I don't like the way the way teams bully the press and I don't like the way the press surrenders(or worse, the soft corruption of never even trying because they are your 'friends'), but it's not some great moral issue.

#737 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,392 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 14:10

Just to add. a 'harmless article'. If that article contains untruths or mis-quotes the intergrity of autosport is brought into question.

Today they would have looked a tad stupid with the headline

"McLaren: New car is radical with questionable legality" and then next "McLaren reveal conservative design for 2012"

All explanations fit within a free media as well. A media should be free to create and secures long-term relationships with teams by not publishing articles which are apparently untrue. A free media isn't about exclusively publishing any old rubbish, which that article was when you take into consideration today's launch.

Edited by rhukkas, 01 February 2012 - 14:12.


#738 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 14:15

It wasn't superior at all.


Your opinion. Not the opinion of the mclaren director.

Let's look at the facts as of today: The car has nothing obviously breaching the regulations as predicted by the article. That suggests there we at least inaccuracies in the report which fully backs up the theory there was an error within the article.


It doesnt say anywhere the innovations would be seen at the launch.

It's a perfectly respectable reason to pull an article, unless you think Autosport should just put out any old rubbish?


You think its rubbish, Autosport deemed it fit for publishing. There is a difference.


We have two scenarios

1. Autosport have made an editorial error with some quotes that appeared to not be totally valid. Could have been said in jest or maybe not said at all. Stuff that occasionally happens in the media. To maintain integrity you must filter the rubbish. Sometimes the filter doesn't catch the rubbish.

2. A McLaren employee states Vettel has god-like driving ability (which he doesn't, no one does) and then follows with saying the new car has radical innovations which will be questionable legally wise.

Scenario 2 is highly unlikely and has been proven not to be the case with today's launch. Scenario 1 is the more likely

Let's not talk about communistic censorship this is nothing of the sort.


Some twisting and turning you do.

1. he never said Vettel has god-like driving abilities. He just said he made the diffreence in getting pole on a qualifying day, and thats why they want a car that was not only superior on pace on sunday, but also on saturday. His exact words.

2. Autosport doesnt make these editorial errors, and leave them up for several hours. And even if they did, why does Windsor report Mclaren states the source was bona fide?
Youd expect Mclaren to me even more livid and demand a very public rectification from Autosport. They dont. They even have one of their writers claim on twitter he cant say anything more than 'you cant bite the hand that feeds you.'

Yes it was exactly the same as a third world communistic dictatorship run country bureau of censorship.

Mclaren didnt like it, for some reason, and threw their weight around to get it removed. Pretty shocking, really.


#739 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 14:18

Just to add. a 'harmless article'. If that article contains untruths or mis-quotes the intergrity of autosport is brought into question.

Today they would have looked a tad stupid with the headline

"McLaren: New car is radical with questionable legality" and then next "McLaren reveal conservative design for 2012"


They would only look stupid if they followed your logic that we have to see those innovations at the launch. Well, we rarely do. He never said it would be at the launch, neither.

The only part I agree about, is the headline was kind of hard. Id expected that to be changed and the rest of the article up.


Advertisement

#740 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,447 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 14:21

Yes it was exactly the same as a third world communistic dictatorship run country bureau of censorship.


Settle petal! To my knowledge, knobody has "disappeared" over this story. Windsor is not on the lam. Silver helicopters with vodafone logos have not swooped on the Autosport offices to seize "anti-McLaren" propoganda.

#741 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,392 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 14:25

Some twisting and turning you do.

1. he never said Vettel has god-like driving abilities. He just said he made the diffreence in getting pole on a qualifying day, and thats why they want a car that was not only superior on pace on sunday, but also on saturday. His exact words.

2. Autosport doesnt make these editorial errors, and leave them up for several hours. And even if they did, why does Windsor report Mclaren states the source was bona fide?
Youd expect Mclaren to me even more livid and demand a very public rectification from Autosport. They dont. They even have one of their writers claim on twitter he cant say anything more than 'you cant bite the hand that feeds you.'

Yes it was exactly the same as a third world communistic dictatorship run country bureau of censorship.

Mclaren didnt like it, for some reason, and threw their weight around to get it removed. Pretty shocking, really.


Can we stop this talk of bureau of censorship, we're not in an a-level sociology class here. The F1 media works within a free-market and you are free to publish what you wish if you have your own website. But if you take one step back and actually analyse the situation, like a responsible adult, the model of Autosport isn't a model shared by broadsheets holding governments to account.

Autosport is a business that provides.

1. Fact based news and reporting
2. Insight in F1's teams and drivers

If that means taking down an article which McLaren clearly feel wasn't 100% accurate that Autosport''s choice to do so because that's how their business runs. It is not Autosport's responsibility to throw away a business model that obviously satisfies a massive market to make some hollow political point and piss off what effectively is a business partner.

I suggest you understand what communism dictatorships actually are before attacking a business that fits the model of a free-market capitalist free-media system.

Your model of F1 journalism would soon leave you with no friends in the sport and no access. Great website that would be....not!

Edited by rhukkas, 01 February 2012 - 14:28.


#742 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,801 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 01 February 2012 - 14:30

Perhaps, but as it is, a mclaren article was pulled, so lets focus on that

Actually, lets not. It cheapens the argument and if you're trying to make a moral point then you might as well start from some high ground.

The McLaren article has made obvious something that happens all of the time but you won't see it because it doesn't get to press. Is it outrageous that it happens? Well, you might think so but McLaren, Ferrari and Red Bull etc are all very protective about their image and all have an enormous say in what gets reported to you.

A good example is the number of journalists who came out of the woodwork in September 2009 to tell us they knew that Singapore 2008 was a fix. That's a far more egregious example of poor journalistic standards. After that, surely you need to modify your understanding of everything that is being fed to you by any of the sites?

No! F1 team that tampers with free, independent journalism like were living in some dictator run third world country. Over the most simple, harmless article you could imagine. Thats what it is!

lol I hope someone has thought of the children.

#743 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 14:32

How can he say Vettel made the difference when he doesn't have access to RedBull data?


LOL!! :rotfl:

Can we stop this talk of bureau of censorship, we're not in an a-level sociology class here. .........
..........................................what effectively is a business partner.


Yeah but then they should rename it into :'the mclaren fan club magazine' and not pretend to be the authority in motorsport journalism.

Like i said, i think the ties between mclaren and autosport are to tight to have true, independent journalistic articles about the workings of Mclaren. And it shows.

I find it a sad development, and im sure a lot of people inside Autosport, as per Elizadles tweets, are too. They are not paid to silver kiss mclaren but in this way their credibility, en plein public, has gotten a big blow.

#744 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 14:37

Actually, lets not. It cheapens the argument and if you're trying to make a moral point then you might as well start from some high ground.

The McLaren article has made obvious something that happens all of the time but you won't see it because it doesn't get to press. Is it outrageous that it happens? Well, you might think so but McLaren, Ferrari and Red Bull etc are all very protective about their image and all have an enormous say in what gets reported to you.


But sofar I have yet to see proof that they actually press autosport to pull an article. From mclaren, we now know for sure. Mercedes, havent made any noise about them being burned to the ground last year, and just shrugged their shoulders. That Mclare now does, for what seems to be a very insignificant article, with maybe one or two choice words, is an indication of how far Mclaren is prepared to go to influence articles about them.


A good example is the number of journalists who came out of the woodwork in September 2009 to tell us they knew that Singapore 2008 was a fix. That's a far more egregious example of poor journalistic standards. After that, surely you need to modify your understanding of everything that is being fed to you by any of the sites?


Well, this certainly raises a good point, as did the raged edge I think, with how silent Autsport was about Eclestones legal shit with that banker.

Nevertheless, Autosport has a reputation to defend, and just got shot down pretty big time. Im glad im not a subscriber anymore when I read this, and cannot escape the feeling im not alone in that.

Edited by TheBunk, 01 February 2012 - 14:40.


#745 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,392 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 14:41

Yeah but then they should rename it into :'the mclaren fan club magazine' and not pretend to be the authority in motorsport journalism.

Like i said, i think the ties between mclaren and autosport are to tight to have true, independent journalistic articles about the workings of Mclaren. And it shows.

I find it a sad development, and im sure a lot of people inside Autosport, as per Elizadles tweets, are too. They are not paid to silver kiss mclaren but in this way their credibility, en plein public, has gotten a big blow.


Now you're acting a bit deluded. Do you know how business works or are you so blinded by your quite frankly immature ideas about censorship?

Autosport was created to report on motorsport, not to be some journalistic beacon of hard-hitting stories. To report on F1 which is literally a few hundred people, you need close relationships with everyone. you don't get that relationship by printing articles that appear to contain untruths which the case which is being specified seems to prove. As of now, there is nothing on the McLaren which is obviously questionable. Why do you think Autosport would jeopardise it's relationship with the UK's most successful and supported F1 team with a pretty poor article

Autosport doesn't pretend to be the authority on motorsport journalism, it has been given that mantle by the market. They've bestowed Autosport that title with the amount of magazines it sells over everyone else. The market has elevated Autosport into it's position of strength the complete opposite of the communist nonsense you talk about.

Freedom of the press is about organisations choosing not to publish stuff they don't like as much as it is the opposite. You have some skewed idea of freedom which appears as "publish everything you can. whether it's verified or valid doesn't matter."

Edited by rhukkas, 01 February 2012 - 14:42.


#746 wrighty

wrighty
  • Member

  • 3,620 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 01 February 2012 - 14:49

You think its rubbish, Autosport deemed it fit for publishing. There is a difference.


They also deemed the article, for whatever reason, fit for removal from the site....does that mean you're happy with their judgment when it suits you?

If you want Autosport to have better resources to ensure their stories are all immaculately researched and double-checked, they'll need more staff so i'd suggest you subscribe rather than asking other subscribers to write article highlights for your benefit.

:rolleyes:

#747 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,801 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 01 February 2012 - 14:52

But sofar I have yet to see proof that they actually press autosport to pull an article.

Indeed. But are you telling me that you do not believe that the other teams do it too? Is that what you're saying or is this what it is starting to look like and just a crusade against Mclaren? Let me know now so I can stop wasting my time responding to you.

@wrighty; Spot on.

#748 wewantourdarbyback

wewantourdarbyback
  • Member

  • 6,358 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 01 February 2012 - 14:54

They also deemed the article, for whatever reason, fit for removal from the site....does that mean you're happy with their judgment when it suits you?

If you want Autosport to have better resources to ensure their stories are all immaculately researched and double-checked, they'll need more staff so i'd suggest you subscribe rather than asking other subscribers to write article highlights for your benefit.

:rolleyes:

Got him in one mate :lol: :clap:

#749 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,392 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 14:54

Indeed. But are you telling me that you do not believe that the other teams do it too? Is that what you're saying or is this what it is starting to look like and just a crusade against Mclaren? Let me know now so I can stop wasting my time responding to you.

@wrighty; Spot on.


and the do you know what the icing on the cake is... he's saying all this on the Autosport forum

Edited by rhukkas, 01 February 2012 - 14:54.


#750 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,104 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 01 February 2012 - 14:55

Autosport doesn't pretend to be the authority on motorsport journalism, it has been given that mantle by the market. They've bestowed Autosport that title with the amount of magazines it sells over everyone else. The market has elevated Autosport into it's position of strength the complete opposite of the communist nonsense you talk about.


The market can create authorities? Now that's a skewed idea of freedom. ;)