73 replies to this topic

[lbennie]

I'd like to discuss the differing attitudes in the media when comparing turkey '10 and canada '11.

There is a stark contrast between the type of coverage each incident has received (and the fallout that ensued the week following), and to my eyes, the incidents are not too different from each other.

is anyone else seeing this?

Is it an accurate reflection on Mclarens PR ability. is it a good example of how a situation like this is handled properly, and in Red Bull's situation last year, a perfect example of how not to handle it?

was there some tall poppy syndrome happening last year, with red bull flying. where as now, Mclaren are still seen as the underdogs so most of the press are a bit reluctant to stick the knife in?

I'm genuinely curious.

[T-Mobile]

Well with Red Bull the WDC was very much a reality for both drivers. Surely this contributed. At this point Vettel is so far ahead the ramifications of the accident are reduced.

Edited by T-Mobile, 14 June 2011 - 02:29.

[Eff One 2002]

The consequences weren't as great, for one and McLaren have a driver in Button/Hamilton who is actually mature and man enough to apologise and take some of the responsibility for what happened, unlike Vettel was at Turkey 2010. McLaren also didn't handle the incident diabolically by blaming the driver not at fault, as RBR did.

Edited by Eff One 2002, 14 June 2011 - 02:39.

[Disgrace]

Most people tend to accept McLaren treat their drivers equally. Also, for once it seemed to be less-controversial Button making the criminal move (but didn't because he couldn't see through the spray). Then Hamilton/Button spoke about it during the red flag situation and came out in respect for each other with mutual apologies.

At Red Bull, the theory of favouritism continues to be rife due to Vettel being a Red Bull young driver programme product and the silly comments of Helmut Marko. Then Christian Horner and Red Bull attempted to blame Webber when it was clearly Vettel at fault for deviating from his line whereas Webber didn't.

It wasn't so much the crash that was interesting, than this attempted cover-up to protect their product, Sebastian Vettel.

Edited by Disgrace, 14 June 2011 - 02:36.

[baddog]

It isnt good when your drivers accidents are not seen as that important. If one of them was leading the WDC we would have seen fireworks, right now it looks like they have given up on the year.. and they are the best competition we have for redbull which is sad.

[DanardiF1]

Red Bull dealt with the incident very badly, giving very mixed messages about who they felt was to blame, then retracting comments and issuing new ones, all culminating in that awful PR shot of WEB and VET shrugging their shoulders...

McLaren have dealt with this much better, letting the drivers talk it out and they have come to an amicable accord. There has been no attempted cover-up for either driver, and every question has been answered sincerely and warmly.

[freya]

Only question is why did the race control investigate the mclaren crash but not the RBR crash...

[Supersleeper]

... the incidents are not too different from each other.

The only thing they had in common was that 2 team mates collided.

As for 1 driver having his engine turned down, whilst the other was up, an order being given from the wall for 1 driver to let the other through without the message being passed on, the horrendous gaffes of Marko and Horner, immediately after the race without being aware of the facts. Marko attempting to cast the Jedi mind trick over everyone with a pair of eyes, and then running off to the German media to plead his case on behalf of Vettel without being aware that Google translate existed. Their denial of the obvious was the catalyst for the farce that was Turkey 2010.

In Canada, both drivers made their own statements and put it down to bad visibility. End of story.

[Tsarwash]

For reasons mentioned above and; Because it can easily be seen as a racing incident in which no driver was clearly to blame, and both of their actions were justifiable, (just about.) Jensen can be forgiven for not seeing Lewis because the spray was terrible and Lewis shouldn't really have been there, and Lewis can be forgiven for attempting a move because he did get a much better run out of the previous corner and a pass would have been inevitable had he chosen the other side to pass.

The Vettel/Webber incident was both of them refusing to give any ground to each other, (no matter the argument about who should have given the ground to whom.)

[Supersleeper]

The Vettel/Webber incident was both of them refusing to give any ground to each other, (no matter the argument about who should have given the ground to whom.)

No. The Vettel/ Webber incident fundamentally occurred because the driver behind was under the impression that the driver in front was going to move over, and the driver in front wasn't aware he was supposed to, because the message hadn't been passed on.

[lbennie]

fair enough, not really my point though.

Does everyone think the BBC is going to continue to pad its coverage with lewis and jenson playing slot cars together/doing pub singalongs?

i found their post race coverage had a 'sweep it under the carpet' feel to it. and martin got of very lightly, it was like one of those interviews where he knew what questions were going to be asked.

are they protecting this image they have helped to build up?

[teejay]

Lewis didnt jump out and give the "that guy is crazy" finger sign.

Whitmarsh didnt lie about it.

Dennis didnt bag out one of his drivers incorrectly.

etc

[Tsarwash]

In slow motion. I can't actually remember which is which.

One driver gets slightly ahead of the other, and then starts to turn into the other, in readiness for the approaching corner. The driver who is behind doesn't do anything at all, just keeps on going in a straight line. It's hard to tell which is at fault more. Both of them had the choice to avoid the crash, and BOTHJ of them made a deliberate decision not to back down, knowing that a crash was going to happen if one of them didn't back down.

Edited by Tsarwash, 14 June 2011 - 03:29.

[Chubby_Deuce]

McLaren cocks up like this all the time.

[bourbon]

Just like Red Bull, they have already been through driver difficulties (Alonso/Hamilton and famed drivers previous to that too). So the teams are not going to allow it again, it does way more harm than good.

Edited by bourbon, 14 June 2011 - 03:34.

[DILLIGAF]

Only question is why did the race control investigate the mclaren crash but not the RBR crash...

That is a very interesting question. Of the two incidents, the one in Turkey appeared to be more worthy of investigation imho.

[pingu666]

For reasons mentioned above and; Because it can easily be seen as a racing incident in which no driver was clearly to blame, and both of their actions were justifiable, (just about.) Jensen can be forgiven for not seeing Lewis because the spray was terrible and Lewis shouldn't really have been there, and Lewis can be forgiven for attempting a move because he did get a much better run out of the previous corner and a pass would have been inevitable had he chosen the other side to pass.

The Vettel/Webber incident was both of them refusing to give any ground to each other, (no matter the argument about who should have given the ground to whom.)

if lewis went on the other side he would of been on the outside for turn 1, so probably wouldnt of gotten past, heck jenson might of drifted back across him in the braking zone for 1.

[teejay]

McLaren cocks up like this all the time.

Could you provide some examples?

I think there was Suzuka 89?
Kimi and Monty in 06

[faaaz]

I genuinely think Hamilton and Button get along really well with each other. You can see the way they talk at media events etc, there seems to be good chemistry. F1 drivers arn't actors and you can tell when they are "putting it on", but it doesn't seem to be the case with these two. That goes a long way to ensuring incidents like this have minimal impact. But of course, if that was the last race of the season and both were in the chance to win the title, I am sure matters would be a little different ;)

[AMG FAN]

I'd like to discuss the differing attitudes in the media when comparing turkey '10 and canada '11.

There is a stark contrast between the type of coverage each incident has received (and the fallout that ensued the week following), and to my eyes, the incidents are not too different from each other.

is anyone else seeing this?

Is it an accurate reflection on Mclarens PR ability. is it a good example of how a situation like this is handled properly, and in Red Bull's situation last year, a perfect example of how not to handle it?

was there some tall poppy syndrome happening last year, with red bull flying. where as now, Mclaren are still seen as the underdogs so most of the press are a bit reluctant to stick the knife in?

I'm genuinely curious.

for one both drivers seemed to put it all behind them immediately,no crazy man gestures or what have you so it'd be silly saying there is war while we see pics of Lewis celebrating genuinely with them and being one of the first to congratulate him.

[AMG FAN]

fair enough, not really my point though.

Does everyone think the BBC is going to continue to pad its coverage with lewis and jenson playing slot cars together/doing pub singalongs?

i found their post race coverage had a 'sweep it under the carpet' feel to it. and martin got of very lightly, it was like one of those interviews where he knew what questions were going to be asked.

are they protecting this image they have helped to build up?

looks to me like you are just digging for conspiracy.

[ensign14]

There is a stark contrast between the type of coverage each incident has received (and the fallout that ensued the week following), and to my eyes, the incidents are not too different from each other.

There are lots of differences. One was for the lead and the likely victory in a race, in the dry, and had after it Marko blaming the one party who patently wasn't to blame. The other was in more difficult, marginal conditions, very early on.

[Italiano Tifoso]

I'd like to discuss the differing attitudes in the media when comparing turkey '10 and canada '11.

There is a stark contrast between the type of coverage each incident has received (and the fallout that ensued the week following), and to my eyes, the incidents are not too different from each other.

is anyone else seeing this?

Is it an accurate reflection on Mclarens PR ability. is it a good example of how a situation like this is handled properly, and in Red Bull's situation last year, a perfect example of how not to handle it?

was there some tall poppy syndrome happening last year, with red bull flying. where as now, Mclaren are still seen as the underdogs so most of the press are a bit reluctant to stick the knife in?

I'm genuinely curious.

I think any media commentator worth their weight in gold could tell that this was genuinely a case of Button not even seeing Hamilton. It was so innocent that the press handled it as required.

I don't think McLarens PR has anything to do with it getting less coverage, as most teams would have handled it that way, but also McLaren don't have a certain Helmut Marko running his mouth off making life worse for their team as was the case with RB last year.

[Callahan]

The only thing they had in common was that 2 team mates collided.

As for 1 driver having his engine turned down, whilst the other was up, an order being given from the wall for 1 driver to let the other through without the message being passed on, the horrendous gaffes of Marko and Horner, immediately after the race without being aware of the facts. Marko attempting to cast the Jedi mind trick over everyone with a pair of eyes, and then running off to the German media to plead his case on behalf of Vettel without being aware that Google translate existed. Their denial of the obvious was the catalyst for the farce that was Turkey 2010.

In Canada, both drivers made their own statements and put it down to bad visibility. End of story.

[iotar]

Why?

1. One of the drivers won the race.
2. It was a wet race
3. No team orders involved
4. They weren't leading the race, set for comfortable 1-2 (there was a reason to fight)
5. Vettel couldn't control the car in a straight line in the dry. Hamilton made legitimate (clumsy and reckless but still) overtaking attempt.
6. One was racing the second had nothing to do with racing

All in all little in common between the two incidents.

[iotar]

Why?

1. One of the drivers won the race.
2. It was a wet race
3. No team orders involved
4. They weren't leading the race, set for comfortable 1-2 (there was a reason to fight)
5. Vettel couldn't control the car in a straight line in the dry. Hamilton made legitimate (clumsy and reckless but still) overtaking attempt.
6. One was racing the second had nothing to do with racing

All in all little in common between the two incidents.

[Kelateboy]

Most people tend to accept McLaren treat their drivers equally. Also, for once it seemed to be less-controversial Button making the criminal move (but didn't because he couldn't see through the spray). Then Hamilton/Button spoke about it during the red flag situation and came out in respect for each other with mutual apologies.

At Red Bull, the theory of favouritism continues to be rife due to Vettel being a Red Bull young driver programme product and the silly comments of Helmut Marko. Then Christian Horner and Red Bull attempted to blame Webber when it was clearly Vettel at fault for deviating from his line whereas Webber didn't.

It wasn't so much the crash that was interesting, than this attempted cover-up to protect their product, Sebastian Vettel.

+1

Red Bull tried to cover up Vettel's mistake by blaming Webber. The whole world could see who initiated the incident.

As for the case of Button vs Hamilton, it is probable that Button was just taking his normal racing line not realizing that Hamilton tried to go for the gap.

[Stormsky68]

Only question is why did the race control investigate the mclaren crash but not the RBR crash...

Yes that is a very good point I hadn't thought about

[Disgrace]

Last year they were being mostly quite lenient with the drivers (and rightly so because they are racing incidents), unlike this year, hence the 100 threads about it.

[GhostR]

I'd like to discuss the differing attitudes in the media when comparing turkey '10 and canada '11.

There is a stark contrast between the type of coverage each incident has received (and the fallout that ensued the week following), and to my eyes, the incidents are not too different from each other.

It is because of the stark contrast in the way that the two teams handled the situation. In the Turkey case, RBR took the approach of apportioning blame ... and worse, apportioning it to the wrong driver. Further, Vettel refused to apologise, refused to admit he was at fault, and made that ridiculous gesture as if to say Webber was a nutjob.

The on-track incidents - not too different. The post-incident handling by the team? McLaren showed at Canada how a professional team handles things. RBR showed at Turkey how amateur they still are in many respects - in particular in how much influence Marko has over the way each driver is treated.

[Raziel]

Why?

1. One of the drivers won the race.
2. It was a wet race
3. No team orders involved
4. They weren't leading the race, set for comfortable 1-2 (there was a reason to fight)
5. Vettel couldn't control the car in a straight line in the dry. Hamilton made legitimate (clumsy and reckless but still) overtaking attempt.
6. One was racing the second had nothing to do with racing

All in all little in common between the two incidents.

Great answer but this bolded part is imo the most important.

[Cowboy4Milkman]

Let's get real here. The difference between the two incidents is that Vettels move seemed rash and incredibly stupid, was also a MAJOR CRASH. Hamitlon however had made a fair move, but Button couldn't see through the spray, so no one really to blame. Hamiltons after the race, also said he could have carried on if not told park it.

[Clatter]

I'd like to discuss the differing attitudes in the media when comparing turkey '10 and canada '11.

There is a stark contrast between the type of coverage each incident has received (and the fallout that ensued the week following), and to my eyes, the incidents are not too different from each other.

is anyone else seeing this?

Is it an accurate reflection on Mclarens PR ability. is it a good example of how a situation like this is handled properly, and in Red Bull's situation last year, a perfect example of how not to handle it?

was there some tall poppy syndrome happening last year, with red bull flying. where as now, Mclaren are still seen as the underdogs so most of the press are a bit reluctant to stick the knife in?

I'm genuinely curious.

The incidents may have been similar, but the way it played out after was 100% different. LH didn't walk off the track giving he is mad signs to the crowd. The team didn't come out blaming the innocent party. There has been no backstabbing and everyone involved has acted like adults and seen the bigger picture. Really the press have not been given any ammunition.

[wewantourdarbyback]

The incidents may have been similar, but the way it played out after was 100% different. LH didn't walk off the track giving he is mad signs to the crowd. The team didn't come out blaming the innocent party. There has been no backstabbing and everyone involved has acted like adults and seen the bigger picture. Really the press have not been given any ammunition.

Roughly that.

The two drivers have come out and said they apologised to each other and Lewis was shown celebrating the team's win. They may well be royally pissed off with each other, but they are in the McLaren PR machine.

[GhostR]

Hamiltons after the race, also said he could have carried on if not told park it.

He said that during the race, and it was subsequently found he was wrong - there was damage at the back of the car that would have forced him out that he didn't know about when he gave that quote.

[Unbiased]

Vettel is German, Button/Hamilton British.

Yes, unfortunately that is what it boils down to in the Englsh speaking media/fan world. Most will of course deny this ;)

The way Hamilton was covered (as in protected) by the BBC in Monaco and Canada, while he was the laughing stock in the paddock and around it, is also proof of this. BBC very skillfully hid that in their reporting in both GPs, post-race.

While when Vettel/Webber crashed last year, they interviewed everyone they could about it and in detail started the smear campaign, just like in Silverstone (because the BBC guys are close friends with Webber, just like the vast majority of the English speaking media is).

Huge difference suddenly, now it is Britsih drivers who do the same.

[PNSD]

The British daily mail tabloid makes a fuss about it in their paper this morning. I persume it was wrote and printed before the race was done because there was nothing about the win.

[Henrik B]

in detail started the smear campaign, just like in Silverstone (because the BBC guys are close friends with Webber, just like the vast majority of the English speaking media is).

The irony of your user name NEVER cease to amuse me.

[Clatter]

Vettel is German, Button/Hamilton British.

Yes, unfortunately that is what it boils down to in the Englsh speaking media/fan world. Most will of course deny this ;)

The way Hamilton was covered (as in protected) by the BBC in Monaco and Canada, while he was the laughing stock in the paddock and around it, is also proof of this. BBC very skillfully hid that in their reporting in both GPs, post-race.

While when Vettel/Webber crashed last year, they interviewed everyone they could about it and in detail started the smear campaign, just like in Silverstone (because the BBC guys are close friends with Webber, just like the vast majority of the English speaking media is).

Huge difference suddenly, now it is Britsih drivers who do the same.

Yes they will, and for very good reasons. Got any evidence that he was the laughing stock of the paddock?

[Jordana]

Vettel is German, Button/Hamilton British.

Yes, unfortunately that is what it boils down to in the Englsh speaking media/fan world. Most will of course deny this ;)

The way Hamilton was covered (as in protected) by the BBC in Monaco and Canada, while he was the laughing stock in the paddock and around it, is also proof of this. BBC very skillfully hid that in their reporting in both GPs, post-race.

While when Vettel/Webber crashed last year, they interviewed everyone they could about it and in detail started the smear campaign, just like in Silverstone (because the BBC guys are close friends with Webber, just like the vast majority of the English speaking media is).

Huge difference suddenly, now it is Britsih drivers who do the same.

Your message makes a lot of sense!

[V8 Fireworks]

Well with Red Bull the WDC was very much a reality for both drivers. Surely this contributed. At this point Vettel is so far ahead the ramifications of the accident are reduced.

Both were racing incidents, with the overtaker mostly at fault.

However in RB's case it was a blatant team order, despite "equal footings" and "preferences to WDC leading driver" - which was WEBBER!! at the time (e.g. justification for Silverstone reallocation of Webber's front wing)

[Jordana]

Both were racing incidents, with the overtaker mostly at fault.

However in RB's case it was a blatant team order, despite "equal footings" and "preferences to WDC leading driver" - which was WEBBER!! at the time (e.g. justification for Silverstone reallocation of Webber's front wing)

Yeah! And Hamilton is not McLaren's golden boy, is he? C'mon... We'll see what happens in Valencia & Silverstone but I won't put my bet on Button... We'll see.

[Coops3]

I have to admit the same thing occurred to me. I suspect it's probably a combination of all the things you've touched on. But for me, the main difference was the fact that the Red Bull boses handled the situation very badly by seemingly blaming Mark in the first instance. This was in stark contrast to what everyone else in the world had witnessed, which led to speculation of driver favouritism. There was also the fact that there was more animosity between the drivers in the RB incident. Specifically, Vettel doing the crazy sign can't have helped the situation.

[ForeverF1]

I'd like to discuss the differing attitudes in the media when comparing turkey '10 and canada '11.

There is a stark contrast between the type of coverage each incident has received (and the fallout that ensued the week following), and to my eyes, the incidents are not too different from each other.

The differing contrast in media coverage of the the two incidents couldn't possibly be that the RB drivers were leading the race and the McLaren drivers were not, at the time of their incidents? No, no, that is far too simple.

[Coops3]

The differing contrast in media coverage of the the two incidents couldn't possibly be that the RB drivers were leading the race and the McLaren drivers were not, at the time of their incidents? No, no, that is far too simple.

lol, good point!

[trogggy]

The story with Red Bull wasn't the crash.

It was what was going on before the crash.
It was what the drivers did and said after the crash.
It was how the team reacted to the crash.

If you can't see the differences in the two situations then I doubt anyone can make it much clearer.

[bogi]

Hakkinen vs Coultard

Raikkonen vs Montoya

[KateLM]

I think the crash in Turkey was a bit more of an "event" (if that makes sense) because it was 40 laps into a hugely tense race in which the Top 4 had been covered by less than 2 seconds throughout, and it was a pass for the lead. But I agree that the main reason that it became a big story is because of the atrocious way it was handled, textbook example of how not to handle an incident. It was Vettel's mental gestures and the team blaming Webber which caused the media shitstorm. Personally I think publicly blaming one of your drivers is a bit iffy even if they were the one at fault, but in most people's eyes Webber wasn't, and it raised all sorts of questions about the intra-team situation which still haven't really gone away. The conflicting messages the team sent out about engine modes didn't help either, and added weight to the argument that they wanted Vettel to get past.

Oh, and that dreadful PR photo afterwards was just demeaning and embarrassing for all involved.

McLaren on the other hand didn't blame either driver, and Jenson and Lewis managed to sort it out between themselves fairly quickly. Plus, the incident itself was more debatable as to who was at fault, and the conditions made it easy to put it down to a racing incident. And there weren't any team radio or engine mode issues that implicated the team in getting involved with the scrap either.

Vettel is German, Button/Hamilton British.

Yes, unfortunately that is what it boils down to in the Englsh speaking media/fan world. Most will of course deny this ;)

The way Hamilton was covered (as in protected) by the BBC in Monaco and Canada, while he was the laughing stock in the paddock and around it, is also proof of this. BBC very skillfully hid that in their reporting in both GPs, post-race.

While when Vettel/Webber crashed last year, they interviewed everyone they could about it and in detail started the smear campaign, just like in Silverstone (because the BBC guys are close friends with Webber, just like the vast majority of the English speaking media is).

Huge difference suddenly, now it is Britsih drivers who do the same.

Is your username meant to be ironic?

Edited by KateLM, 14 June 2011 - 13:28.

[SRi130Brett]

Vettel is German, Button/Hamilton British.

Yes, unfortunately that is what it boils down to in the Englsh speaking media/fan world. Most will of course deny this ;)

The way Hamilton was covered (as in protected) by the BBC in Monaco and Canada, while he was the laughing stock in the paddock and around it, is also proof of this. BBC very skillfully hid that in their reporting in both GPs, post-race.

While when Vettel/Webber crashed last year, they interviewed everyone they could about it and in detail started the smear campaign, just like in Silverstone (because the BBC guys are close friends with Webber, just like the vast majority of the English speaking media is).

Huge difference suddenly, now it is Britsih drivers who do the same.

Good consideration of the similarities. You fall apart becuase you ignored the differences -

Red Bull
a) Championship contendors
b) Clearly Vettels fault
c) The team blamed Webber
d) drivers individual reactions to it immediatly post race were negative towards each other
e) rumors of Vettel favourtisim within RB

McLaren
a) Championsip is all but a forgone conclusion at this stage
b) although I called it as Hamiltons fault at the time, it seems a clear racing incedent and not clearly one or the others fault
c) Team have not blamed a clearly innocent driver
d) Drivers individual reactions not as extreme and better managed
e) no one is saying McLaren are biased towards JB or LH.

There just isnt the same story this time. The media are fickle. Check out Martin Samuels peice in Yesterdays Daily Mail, that'll cheer you up. A desperate peice of journailism that tries to paint a war within McLaren. You'll enjoy it!

[Tsarwash]

Is your username meant to be ironic?

The ironic thing is no, it isn't.