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

#751 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 14:57

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.


No it doesnt, just in your eyes because a mclaren director said Vettel made the difference. Who should I follow, his opinion, or yours? For the record: Mclaren nor Autosport have said what exactly was so bad about this article that it needed pulling.


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


Again you mix your opinion with some open facts. Only you, and a few disgruntled Vettel haters and Mclaren fans thought it was a '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."


Autosport loves to sell themselves as a serious, premium content, with inside info printing magazine. Now the tag, but only if its aproved by Mclaren censorship board, is added.

I can understand not everything is printed, and they need to maintain some kind of relationship. But a small, mild article, an interview with a high ranking Mclaren official being pulled is just way over the top and very embarrassing for their business model. Well, maybe not in your eyes because you are startiung to get red mist and invent words the article never stated, like parts being shown on the launch day, or Vettels god-like abilities.



Advertisement

#752 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,271 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 14:58

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


You know what a mean.... I mean authority in the sense of #8

authority [ɔːˈθɒrɪtɪ]
n pl -ties
1. the power or right to control, judge, or prohibit the actions of others
2. (often plural) a person or group of people having this power, such as a government, police force, etc.
3. a position that commands such a power or right (often in the phrase in authority)
4. such a power or right delegated, esp from one person to another; authorization she has his authority
5. the ability to influence or control others a man of authority
6. an expert or an authoritative written work in a particular field he is an authority on Ming china
7. evidence or testimony we have it on his authority that she is dead
8. confidence resulting from great expertise the violinist lacked authority in his cadenza

#753 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,412 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 14:58

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


The market does not create authorities, but it certainly can elevate publications to the status of authority.

#754 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,358 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:00

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?


They had it from what they considered trusted sources, but did they have the evidence?

Surely the fact of everyone "in the loop" already knowing what had happened was the reason the story spread so quickly, and the Renault team's disgrace was so intense? That doesn't tend to happen unless the story is pre-loaded, so to speak.

#755 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,271 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:02

Autosport loves to sell themselves as a serious, premium content, with inside info printing magazine. Now the tag, but only if its aproved by Mclaren censorship board, is added.

I can understand not everything is printed, and they need to maintain some kind of relationship. But a small, mild article, an interview with a high ranking Mclaren official being pulled is just way over the top and very embarrassing for their business model. Well, maybe not in your eyes because you are startiung to get red mist and invent words the article never stated, like parts being shown on the launch day, or Vettels god-like abilities.


McLaren are communist dictators then... I have literally never heard of anything more hilarious in my life.

OK, if you're so clever, start your own F1 magazine. See how successful you are with the teams and the market. A bit of advice though - don't you'll fail miserably.

#756 sosidge

sosidge
  • Member

  • 1,621 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:03

If the article was incorrectly or maliciously sourced, then there would be no hesitation from Autosport to clarify this.

The fact they haven't sought to clarify the removal of the story suggests they were happy with the content but removed it under external pressure.

So although it is a credible theory to suggest the article was a mistake, the nature of it's removal suggests it wasn't.

F1 is a small world, and there are not enough paying readers out there to justify breaking the relationship with one of your main sources of information and therefore earnings. The BBC can get away with "journlistic integrity", perhaps some of the major national papers can on big stories, but a magazine which sells 30,000 copies a week, and needs to sell half of its pages to advertisers who expect Lewis on the front cover, can't.

#757 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:05

Indeed. But are you telling me that you do not believe that the other teams do it too?


When has another team forced / 'convinced' Autosport to remove an article after publication?

Before publication, yes, all teams try to present material that is best for their image. PR and selective truths. Maybe even lies. A lot of the off-the-record comments do not find their way to the articles, we understand and accept this.

But extending control to content after publication is a new one, and you seem very motivated to trivialize this. I don't think you or any of the mods are paid to do the thankless janitorial work for the community, so please do not disgrace yourself by becoming such sycophants for Autosport.



#758 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,222 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:05

Again you mix your opinion with some open facts. Only you, and a few disgruntled Vettel haters and Mclaren fans thought it was a 'poor' article.

You're making a qualititive judgement on the article without knowing why it was pulled. If it was pulled because it was a misapproriated quotation, the answer to an implied question that wasn't asked or an article made up by a work experience guy as 'practice' but published in error then you've made a terrible mistake.

#759 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:05

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.


To be honest im not sure how much the other teams do it with Autosport or other media.

As I said, im sure there are agreements, off the record conversations and small talk that stays within the paddock. But you cannot deny the ties between mclaren and autosport might just make a bit harder to say no when a team doesnt like a certain article.

Whats more, uptill now there hasnt been an instance where an article, after publication, is being pulled other than this Mclaren article. And as you also admit, the way Autosport has been dealing with this, has been very poor.

Advertisement

#760 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,412 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:07

When has another team forced / 'convinced' Autosport to remove an article after publication?

Before publication, yes, all teams try to present material that is best for their image. PR and selective truths. Maybe even lies. A lot of the off-the-record comments do not find their way to the articles, we understand and accept this.

But extending control to content after publication is a new one, and you seem very motivated to trivialize this. I don't think you or any of the mods are paid to do the thankless janitorial work for the community, so please do not disgrace yourself by becoming such sycophants for Autosport.


Are you sure that Autosport was forced/convinced to remove this article?

#761 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:08

You're making a qualititive judgement on the article without knowing why it was pulled. If it was pulled because it was a misapproriated quotation, the answer to an implied question that wasn't asked or an article made up by a work experience guy as 'practice' but published in error then you've made a terrible mistake.


I disagree. For one, it never happened before, and two, mclaren, by word of windsor, put out a statement that the source wasnt bona fide. To then keep on specualting it was published by error is a very long shot. But I admit, it doesnt help that Autosport stats silent over this.

#762 JRizzle86

JRizzle86
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:11

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!


You compared them to North Korea. Yes i believe you are exaggerating the story, yes i believe you don't have all the facts at hand.

It isn't against the will of free speech or journalism to pull a story. If the story was flawed and didn't have all the facts or was misquoted, they have every right to remove the story. Autosport tends to only post fact, it isn't exactly Planet F1 journalism of a tabloid nature. The story reeked of tabloid news.

#763 wewantourdarbyback

wewantourdarbyback
  • Member

  • 6,358 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:12

Are you sure that Autosport was forced/convinced to remove this article?


It's all speculation taken as fact.

#764 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,358 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:12

The market does not create authorities, but it certainly can elevate publications to the status of authority.

Like it did with the News of the World? :D [On second thoughts, let's not go there...] On second thoughts the market has not allowed the kind of financial independence from F1 team-news that Autosport would need to bring the kind of "hard-hitting stories" that were mentioned earlier. In the great spirit of making a small fortune in F1 by starting with a large one, clearly Autosport needs a charitable trust to ensure it can go after that sort of journalism. :lol:

Ideally I'd like an explanation of why the story was pulled. As a reader I'm entitled to think less of Autosport -- or as a consumer: to value them less ;) -- for not providing one. However the article was hardly in the manner of a high-yield bombshell: at most it was just a bit surprising to hear those things said by a Mclaren Group employee instead of on Midweek Motorsport or something. Perhaps rather than sinister despot journalism this is more like laxness over transparency (either for printing it in the first place, or then removing it without explanation) from Autosport.com that's come across as aloofness.

[I haven't posted in a "hot" thread for a while; I went away to fill the kettle and did a double take when I came back to find two replies not just on the thread, but to my -- [i]my[/i] -- post. :lol: ]

Edited by Risil, 01 February 2012 - 15:18.


#765 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,412 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:14

It's all speculation taken as fact.


Exactly, hot air.

#766 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:14

Are you sure that Autosport was forced/convinced to remove this article?

Ah, yes.

I completely forgot to consider the possibility that Autosport willingly published the article for a laugh, and then willingly deleted it for the same reason. Or that the CMS was cracked and a naughty person used his access to publish this one story.

I mean, unless we can give conclusive, legally admissible evidence we really should shut-up and pretend nothing ever happened, which will suit the purpose of people who wanted that story gone very well.

All a coincidence. And / Or a joke.

#767 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:18

Exactly, hot air.

For consistency, this is not hot air? Is some type of hot air more condemnable than other?

#768 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,412 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:20

Ah, yes.

I completely forgot to consider the possibility that Autosport willingly published the article for a laugh, and then willingly deleted it for the same reason. Or that the CMS was cracked and a naughty person used his access to publish this one story.

I mean, unless we can give conclusive, legally admissible evidence we really should shut-up and pretend nothing ever happened, which will suit the purpose of people who wanted that story gone very well.

All a coincidence. And / Or a joke.


If you replace the word willingly with actually, you might see the humorous side of it.

#769 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:23

If you replace the word willingly with actually, you might see the humorous side of it.

So are you speaking for Autosport, now? Is this what actually happened?

If not, more hot air! :D

EDIT:

Noble disagrees. So much for misplaced loyalty and attempts to cover for the editorial team, lol.

all i can say is that there was a request to remove it. That is all I can say I'm afraid


Edited by primer, 01 February 2012 - 15:27.


#770 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 19,929 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:24

from the feedback forum

I think this is as good as it's going to get: Tweet from Jonathan Noble



#771 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,824 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:26

Anyone want to suggest odds on this appearing on the site? :lol:

http://uk.reuters.co...E8D15GS20120201



#772 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,412 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:27

So are you speaking for Autosport, now? Is this what actually happened?

If not, more hot air! :D


I, and the other Moderators and Administrators, speak only for ourselves. Forget the notion that we are employed (paid) by Haymarket Publications Ltd. :lol:

#773 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,222 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:28

When has another team forced / 'convinced' Autosport to remove an article after publication?

Before publication, yes, all teams try to present material that is best for their image. PR and selective truths. Maybe even lies. A lot of the off-the-record comments do not find their way to the articles, we understand and accept this.

But extending control to content after publication is a new one, and you seem very motivated to trivialize this. I don't think you or any of the mods are paid to do the thankless janitorial work for the community, so please do not disgrace yourself by becoming such sycophants for Autosport.

What no Saddam information minister meme?

It is my honest opinion and I'm sorry if that offends, but I'm certainly not ashamed of my stance. I'm not blind to the power of PR or to the access that a good relationship with a team might bring to a publication and therefore the importance of maintaining it, but since nobody knows exactly why the article was removed it seems a little presumptive to be passing judgement or condemning.

#774 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:45

but since nobody knows exactly why the article was removed it seems a little presumptive to be passing judgement or condemning.

Well, Noble has already answered our why.

Even so, this 'non-presumptive, non-judgemental and non-condemning' courtesy could perhaps be extended to the readers as well, instead of mounting attempts to squash any discussion and dismissing reader's inference as hot air. I am not asking you to change your stance as far as your comment about PR and team-media relationship. We all understand that. And Noble has- more or less- admitted that much. But don't use this as an opportunity to try and downplay how much of Autosport's editorial control now rests with Mclaren. This is a new low.

Can anyone point out one instance where a published article was outright deleted / removed to please any team, not just Mclaren? If this is not notable, on-topic and worth discussing I don't know what is.

Edited by primer, 01 February 2012 - 15:46.


#775 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,388 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:48

Can anyone cannot point out one instance where a published article was outright deleted / removed to please any team, not just Mclaren? If this is not notable, on-topic and worth discussing I don't know what is.


Have you actually read the article? Did a number of things about it not strike you as strange? Plausible enough at first sight, but not stacking up on closer investigation....

#776 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,824 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 01 February 2012 - 15:48

I know of one, but it involved Mercedes engines so maybe that doesn't count :p

And multiple photos have been removed because someone didn't like something. And not multiple as in 5 from the same batch, but multiple instances of people asking for things to be removed.

#777 artista

artista
  • RC Forum Host

  • 5,171 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 16:03

Well, Noble has already answered our why.

Even so, this 'non-presumptive, non-judgemental and non-condemning' courtesy could perhaps be extended to the readers as well, instead of mounting attempts to squash any discussion and dismissing reader's inference as hot air. I am not asking you to change your stance as far as your comment about PR and team-media relationship. We all understand that. And Noble has- more or less- admitted that much. But don't use this as an opportunity to try and downplay how much of Autosport's editorial control now rests with Mclaren. This is a new low.

Can anyone point out one instance where a published article was outright deleted / removed to please any team, not just Mclaren? If this is not notable, on-topic and worth discussing I don't know what is.

You do know that one of the reasons somebody can ask a magazin or journal to withdraw some content is that the content is not true, right?
It might be the case, or it might not.


#778 Stormsky68

Stormsky68
  • Member

  • 1,623 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 16:06

Well, Noble has already answered our why.

Even so, this 'non-presumptive, non-judgemental and non-condemning' courtesy could perhaps be extended to the readers as well, instead of mounting attempts to squash any discussion and dismissing reader's inference as hot air. I am not asking you to change your stance as far as your comment about PR and team-media relationship. We all understand that. And Noble has- more or less- admitted that much. But don't use this as an opportunity to try and downplay how much of Autosport's editorial control now rests with Mclaren. This is a new low.

Can anyone point out one instance where a published article was outright deleted / removed to please any team, not just Mclaren? If this is not notable, on-topic and worth discussing I don't know what is.


Sorry but I disagree

Noble does not say who requested or why

You are presuming it to be Mclaren and you are presuming the content, although accurate, was simply not to their taste

You may indeed be right when all is said and done, but right now, today, there is simply not enough evidence to support your (and Bunks) logic leaps

Edited by Stormsky68, 01 February 2012 - 16:07.


#779 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 01 February 2012 - 16:11

Sorry but I disagree

Noble does not say who requested or why

You are presuming it to be Mclaren and you are presuming the content, although accurate, was simply not to their taste

You may indeed be right when all is said and done, but right now, today, there is simply not enough evidence to support your (and Bunks) logic leaps

Fair enough!

Some non-Mclaren third party may have requested Autosport / Noble to delete that article.



Advertisement

#780 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,271 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 16:18

With today's launch of the very conservative McLaren, I think it's safe to say the article contained some inaccuracies. That probably meant the source material may have not been 100% verified.

#781 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,388 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 16:20

With today's launch of the very conservative McLaren, I think it's safe to say the article contained some inaccuracies. That probably meant the source material may have not been 100% verified.


You mean how it reads like a spoof?

#782 JRizzle86

JRizzle86
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 16:23

With today's launch of the very conservative McLaren, I think it's safe to say the article contained some inaccuracies. That probably meant the source material may have not been 100% verified.


Nail-Head-On...

#783 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,824 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 01 February 2012 - 16:24

So the alternate theory is Autosport used a story from a non-motorsport guy, who doesn't work for them; quoting a guy who though a McLaren senior employee is not part of the race team. And they didn't confirm the accuracy of those quotes. Nor did they ask McLaren racing people or McLaren PR if they'd like to comment before they publish, either due to the strange origin of the story or just out of good journalism.

And then took all this and made it their top story and had their writers manually promote it on Twitter.



#784 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,222 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 01 February 2012 - 16:26

Well, Noble has already answered our why.

Even so, this 'non-presumptive, non-judgemental and non-condemning' courtesy could perhaps be extended to the readers as well, instead of mounting attempts to squash any discussion and dismissing reader's inference as hot air. I am not asking you to change your stance as far as your comment about PR and team-media relationship. We all understand that. And Noble has- more or less- admitted that much. But don't use this as an opportunity to try and downplay how much of Autosport's editorial control now rests with Mclaren. This is a new low.

Can anyone point out one instance where a published article was outright deleted / removed to please any team, not just Mclaren? If this is not notable, on-topic and worth discussing I don't know what is.

Again you conflate my opinion and posts with that of Autosport. Autosport is not 'mounting attempts to squash' anything except the original article and we do not know why it was done despite Noble's tweet which, incidentally, was released to the world long after the discussion blew up here. What the tweet adds is confirmation that it was pulled on request but still not what the problem with it was or who.

I would very much like to see a higher standard of journalism in F1 but the minute someone tries to find dirty money behind a team owner they will be out of the motorhome and probably out of the paddock too and we'll get nothing.

#785 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,388 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 16:28

Geoff McGrath speaking to Global Corporate Venturing: "McLaren Applied Technologies has most recently been engaged in venture backing for initiatives involving remote monitoring and real-time data analysis for sports and health applications that leverage our expertise in telemetry, data processing, modelling and simulation to provide information in a timely, relevant and clear format for professional users, from nurses and doctors to sports coaches."

Geoff McGrath (allegedly) speaking to Autosport: "he was still whupping us"

Edited by smitten, 01 February 2012 - 16:33.


#786 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,824 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 01 February 2012 - 16:33

The former is how someone fills out their LinkedIn profile, the latter is how someone talks to a person.

#787 Stormsky68

Stormsky68
  • Member

  • 1,623 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 16:34

Fair enough!

Some non-Mclaren third party may have requested Autosport / Noble to delete that article.


Who knows, and that's the point. No one, until or unless Autosport, or Mclaren choose to make an official statement.

Unitl I saw the car today, my personal thinking was Autosport published some off the record remarks made by a non racing guy; the racing team mgmt objected, or indeed the non racing guy who was quoted objected, and the article was withdrawn. Now I've seen the car which has no radical or illegal technology, I wonder if the article wasn't simply a complete fabrication.

Regardless, I have no proof that either event happened.

Edited by Stormsky68, 01 February 2012 - 16:37.


#788 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,388 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 16:35

The former is how someone fills out their LinkedIn profile, the latter is how someone talks to a person.


The former is how a senior McLaren exec speaks on the record to a trade publication, the latter isn't.

#789 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,358 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 01 February 2012 - 16:38

Can we start a letter-writing campaign to Mclaren and stop concentrating on Autosport.com who seem to have been bullied out of a legit story yet?

#790 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,271 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 16:39

So the alternate theory is Autosport used a story from a non-motorsport guy, who doesn't work for them; quoting a guy who though a McLaren senior employee is not part of the race team. And they didn't confirm the accuracy of those quotes. Nor did they ask McLaren racing people or McLaren PR if they'd like to comment before they publish, either due to the strange origin of the story or just out of good journalism.

And then took all this and made it their top story and had their writers manually promote it on Twitter.



If I said the BBC once mistook a cab driver for an IT expert you'd say I was insane... except they once did

It's is entirely plausible some mistake had been made quoting mcgrath. The article read very poorly and didn't really coincide with Autosport's regular news coverage. Then again it could have been completely genuine and McLaren asked AS to remove which in fact, in a free society, they are free to do.

#791 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,824 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 01 February 2012 - 16:43

And people have done in the past, with that site.

Hell I remember in 2007 McLaren were getting pissy over Alonso quotes he was making to Spanish radio, which were different than what he was saying to English media. All because Autosport.com had a Spanish speaker on staff and McLaren weren't paying attention to what Alonso was saying/doing once he went home.

So given the history of the parties involved, the way media works, and just plain sensibility; the most likely outcome if the quotes were real, McLaren got paranoid about them, and applied pressure to have them removed.



#792 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 16:43

Well, Noble has already answered our why.

Even so, this 'non-presumptive, non-judgemental and non-condemning' courtesy could perhaps be extended to the readers as well, instead of mounting attempts to squash any discussion and dismissing reader's inference as hot air. I am not asking you to change your stance as far as your comment about PR and team-media relationship. We all understand that. And Noble has- more or less- admitted that much. But don't use this as an opportunity to try and downplay how much of Autosport's editorial control now rests with Mclaren. This is a new low.

Can anyone point out one instance where a published article was outright deleted / removed to please any team, not just Mclaren? If this is not notable, on-topic and worth discussing I don't know what is.


Couldnt have said it better myself. :up:


Fair enough!

Some non-Mclaren third party may have requested Autosport / Noble to delete that article.


:lol:

I think the point that the readers, and long time (former) subscribers such as myself, oughta be treated with a little more respect as to why this article eas published, and then pulled. Forgive me that I get a very bad taste in my mouth over the alleged party that asked Noble for withdrawal.

#793 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,271 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 16:48

I think the point that the readers, and long time (former) subscribers such as myself, oughta be treated with a little more respect as to why this article eas published, and then pulled. Forgive me that I get a very bad taste in my mouth over the alleged party that asked Noble for withdrawal.


Yes, Autosport are going to jeopardise their relationship with the UK;s most popular F1 teams because 1 annoyed person demands respect.

delusions of grandeur

#794 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,824 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 01 February 2012 - 16:52

The problem will have been internal at Haymarket. McLaren will have complained to senior people who only care about keeping their perks and told editorial what to do.

#795 artista

artista
  • RC Forum Host

  • 5,171 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 17:00

So the alternate theory is Autosport used a story from a non-motorsport guy, who doesn't work for them; quoting a guy who though a McLaren senior employee is not part of the race team. And they didn't confirm the accuracy of those quotes. Nor did they ask McLaren racing people or McLaren PR if they'd like to comment before they publish, either due to the strange origin of the story or just out of good journalism.

And then took all this and made it their top story and had their writers manually promote it on Twitter.

Erm, Ross, I don't really know how the guys in Autosport do it but, usually, those twitters are produced in an automatic way. And looking how Elizalde's and Noble's tweets always come out at the same moment, it seems they use the automatic system (as everybody else).

#796 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,142 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 01 February 2012 - 17:02

Erm, Ross, I don't really know how the guys in Autosport do it but, usually, those twitters are produced in an automatic way. And looking how Elizalde's and Noble's tweets always come out at the same moment, it seems they use the automatic system (as everybody else).

I spotted it on Jon Noble's and Edd Straw's Twitter about 11:45 yesterday, and it wasn't the "automatic style" tweets you see, it was actually them writing it. Let me see if I can find anyone that RT'd them...

EDIT: https://twitter.com/#!/andrewbensonf1/s...301383061876736

Andrew Benson (BBC)
RT @NobleF1: McLaren is bracing itself to prove the legality of what looks set to be its radical new MP4-27 autosport.com/news/report.ph...
31 Jan

And Edd Straw's original tweet, still online: https://twitter.com/#!/eddstrawF1/statu...300282514251777

Edd Straw (Autosport F1 editor)
New McLaren could face legality fight autosport.com/news/report.ph…
31 Jan

Edited by D.M.N., 01 February 2012 - 17:07.


#797 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,824 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 01 February 2012 - 17:05

If it was automated it'd be for every story. The writers are doing it themselves.

#798 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 01 February 2012 - 17:09

Yes, Autosport are going to jeopardise their relationship with the UK;s most popular F1 teams


B-bu-but we have NoProofTM that it was pulled at Mclaren's request. So how could it jeopardize Autosport's "relationship" with Mclaren? :cat:

Has anyone even considered the possibility that the article was first published -and then removed- at behest of either RBR or Ferrari? First, make the Mclaren drivers look bad by asking Autosport to publish that article, next make the Mclaren team look bad by having that article pulled in such a way everyone will assume Mclarendidit. :eek:

Yes, this is what likely happened. Mclaren are completely innocent. And Autosport are a victim.

OMG RBR and/or Ferrari I hates you. :mad:




#799 artista

artista
  • RC Forum Host

  • 5,171 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 17:16

I spotted it on Jon Noble's and Edd Straw's Twitter about 11:45 yesterday, and it wasn't the "automatic style" tweets you see, it was actually them writing it. Let me see if I can find anyone that RT'd them...

EDIT: https://twitter.com/#!/andrewbensonf1/s...301383061876736

Andrew Benson (BBC)
RT @NobleF1: McLaren is bracing itself to prove the legality of what looks set to be its radical new MP4-27 autosport.com/news/report.ph...
31 Jan

And Edd Straw's original tweet, still online: https://twitter.com/#!/eddstrawF1/statu...300282514251777

Edd Straw (Autosport F1 editor)
New McLaren could face legality fight autosport.com/news/report.ph…
31 Jan


This is the one in @Autosportnews
McLaren set for new car legality fight: #F1 - McLaren is bracing itself for a battle over the legality of its ne...
12:14 pm - 31 ene 12 vía twitterfeed
https://twitter.com/#!/autosportnews/st...305570000678912


It's the same one as Noble's, the kind you generate pushing a button in the article (I admit I don't follow Straw, I have always noticed the thing with the tweets with Noble, Elizalde and @Autosportnews). BTW, Noble's is stillt there https://twitter.com/#!/NobleF1/status/164300979326554112

Advertisement

#800 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,390 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 17:56

Good god.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that anything contentious that could be varified was factually incorrect!

1) "There are technical innovations on this car which will be immediately obvious when you see them"

No there isn't.

2) "We started way behind in the last couple of years"

What. Like 2010 you mean?

3) "There's no trickery on the cars"

How does he know this? Red Bull are probably the most secretive team on the grid. Do you really believe that the intimate working knowledge of the concepts and systems that make their car so fast would be spread as far as a satellite operation of McLaren? Gimme a break!

Finally, the so called journalist reports that "It is understood that McLaren are focussing on single lap speed with the MP4-27 which it hopes will allow it to take more pole positions and control races from the front"

Today, Goss actually said that they were more focussed on getting the best out of the tyres during the race to that exact question!

Edited by maverick69, 01 February 2012 - 18:12.