26 replies to this topic

[Bruce]

It'd be nice. For Monza - "Vettel reels off commanding win".

 

Yeah - I suppose. You could also have written, for greater accuracy: "Vettel easily wins at Monza".

 

This isn't meant to be an attack on Vettel  - not his fault he's in the best car - but really - it's pretty clear that the Red Bull is streets ahead of anyone else - or am I wrong? Apparently, Red Bull had trouble with Vettel's  car at Monza (as did Webber, surprise, surprise) and yet they still managed to open, at the greatest differential, a 12+ second lead on the only serious competitor. 

 

Are these headlines written in order to preserve the idea that that F1 season is "close", or that real excitement remains? (Let's be honest - barring a complete disaster, Vettel has had this wrapped up for a couple of races). 

 

I remember in 1992, when Mansell was at Williams, and the Williams car was literally 1 second + faster than any other car, that he was asked from the press gallery, after he had reeled off his 5th or 6th consecutive win "Was that easy?" - Poor Mansell - had to fight tooth and nail to get a GP drive, and when he finally wins a WDC, it's in a car that anyone could have won in. His answer of course, was to grunt and to assert strongly in his Brummy tones that no - in fact it had really been a tough race... hmmm. I really think that Mansell has had tougher races than the wins he achieved in the dominant Williams - but  - what are you going to say? Yeah - that was easy  - a monkey could drive this car to a win.... (?)

 

I was talking to a friend recently and I mentioned F1, and his response was to answer; "THAT"s not a sport! The guy who wins the WDC always has the fastest car!!" I was about to react with derision, when I realised that the only exception to this in recent memory was likely Raikkonen in 2007 when he overcame the dominant McLaren because of their inter-team squabble. 

 

I'd love to see some "honest" headlines... - like "To absolutley no one's surprise, Vettel cruises to Monza win".

 

But this is F1. We have to pretend that each and every win is agains the odds...

 

 

 

 

[mnmracer]

Aside from the inaccurate implication that this victory has been significantly different than Ferrari's, Mercedes', McLaren's or Lotus' victories, and aside from the ridiculousness of the comparison with '92..

 

This is F1. This has always been F1. And if you ever thought it was any different, you are delusional.

Edited by mnmracer, 08 September 2013 - 17:07.

[Kobasmashi]

I'd say "reels off" and "commanding" suggest dominance.

[HoldenRT]

I don't think headlines are worthy of such analysis.  They are intended to grab your attention, not much else.

Edited by HoldenRT, 08 September 2013 - 17:23.

[Andrew Hope]

I don't think it really matters what wording you use, as it takes very little imagination to come up with an argument against whatever headline you end up using. Vettel could have won with a slow puncture and engine problems and a KERS failure and it would have indeed been a tougher race win than a cakewalk from pole where nothing went wrong, but I would imagine people who work 70 hours a week in a steel factory would love to hear what a tough and demanding day he had as a Formula 1 driver.

Most of the usual ******** comes from a reluctance of fans to accept this is a team sport at least 50:50 with it being a drivers sport, but more likely 90:10. The drivers are employed to drive the team's car, not the teams created to give the drivers something to do. More to the point, it's poor form to criticize a driver or a team for doing too good of a job. You can be annoyed all you want, and I'd rather have a close title fight than Vettel running off with it again, but it's up to the 10 other teams on the grid to make a car better than Red Bull does and for the fourth straight year, they've failed.

[prty]

Aside from the inaccurate implication that this victory has been significantly different than Ferrari's, Mercedes', McLaren's or Lotus' victories, and aside from the ridiculousness of the comparison with '92..

 

This is F1. This has always been F1. And if you ever thought it was any different, you are delusional.

 

We are who we are.

[P123]

I don't see an issue, especially with the headline noted in the OP.  Headlines are there to make you click on the link.  It's how they make their money.

[Bruce]

I don't see an issue, especially with the headline noted in the OP.  Headlines are there to make you click on the link.  It's how they make their money.

I agree - it's not REALLY an issue - and I don't REALLY expect anything else... ( no one is ever going to click on a link entitled "wow - what a boring race" [and this is not a characterization of the recent Monza race]) - or would they? 

 

I suppose it would merely be refreshing...

[HeadFirst]

We are who we are.

Not true. "We are who we pretend to be, so be careful who you pretend to be." Kurt Vonnegut - Mother Night

[Bruce]

Aside from the inaccurate implication that this victory has been significantly different than Ferrari's, Mercedes', McLaren's or Lotus' victories, and aside from the ridiculousness of the comparison with '92..

 

This is F1. This has always been F1. And if you ever thought it was any different, you are delusional.

I didn't suggest that this has been "different" from other teams or drivers wins - although - it can be said that in some other races, there has been more excitement, less predictability, etc. Still - we can't expect that from every race, can we? Further - the "comparison" to 1992 was not intended as a reflection upon this race - it was merely the LAST time that I can remember a driver being asked such a question - perhaps you can remember something more recent?

 

No. It hasn't ALWAYS been F1. The fact is that every year, the driver becomes less and less a factor in a car's success (the late 80s and early 90s were a particularly noteworthy example of this) - and while the competition has been somewhat closer in the recent past (which has been great for the fans).

 

A look at Senna's career is enlightening upon this point. At the start of his career, he was able to make huge inroads (comparatively) upon other cars based upon his skill. Later in his career when much of this driver "advantage" had been nullified with active suspension and the advent of computer assisted shiftless driving (as well as a host of other advances) he was only able to display this advantage when conditions were extreme - like it was when it was raining... So - no - it's not ALWAYS been this way. a talented driver used to be able to make a difference. Not so much anymore. Look it up. 

[Bruce]

Not true. "We are who we pretend to be, so be careful who you pretend to be." Kurt Vonnegut - Mother Night

 

Nah - look at my "sig". ;-)

[Bruce]

I don't think it really matters what wording you use, as it takes very little imagination to come up with an argument against whatever headline you end up using. Vettel could have won with a slow puncture and engine problems and a KERS failure and it would have indeed been a tougher race win than a cakewalk from pole where nothing went wrong, but I would imagine people who work 70 hours a week in a steel factory would love to hear what a tough and demanding day he had as a Formula 1 driver.

Most of the usual ******** comes from a reluctance of fans to accept this is a team sport at least 50:50 with it being a drivers sport, but more likely 90:10. The drivers are employed to drive the team's car, not the teams created to give the drivers something to do. More to the point, it's poor form to criticize a driver or a team for doing too good of a job. You can be annoyed all you want, and I'd rather have a close title fight than Vettel running off with it again, but it's up to the 10 other teams on the grid to make a car better than Red Bull does and for the fourth straight year, they've failed.

 

I couldn't agree more. 

 

But the other teams have failed for the past 4 years and continue to fail with a regularity that renders the Vettel win at Monza nothing less than utterly predictable. He'll likely win at Singapore too. What you are suggesting that it is the other teams faults... perhaps then, the headline should be "Ferrari, Mercedes, Mclaren and Lotus continue to blow chunks at Monza..." ??? 

 

 

[ardbeg]

How about: Toby Moody column: the day Lorenzo broke Marquez

 

I read it and thought mr Moody was a complete idiot but I clicked and read the article after all and realized whoever wrote that headline is a tool.

[Bruce]

OK - I was happy to let this thread die the death... but then I saw this - Autoposrt+ (thus I didn't read it - not having access): But -HEADLINE (re monza):

 

"Vettel's rivals make it easy"

 

Tripe.

 

Tripe, tripe, tripe.

 

First  - by inferring "rivals, we can assume "drivers" not "teams" - (otherwise the heading should be "Red Bull's rivals....")

 

So - how did Alonso, Hamilton, Raikkonen etc make it "easy" for Vettel? Lap times suggest that even if Vettel had started 5th, behind Alonso, Hamilton, Raikkonen, Webber and Rosberg, he still would've won the race easily (with Mark's help, when Red Bull requested). So - How did "Rosberg" make it easy? By not getting pole in a Red Bull???

 

How did Alonso make it easy"? By having to drive a slower car from 5th on the grid???

 

What rubbish. I'll tell you what made it "easy" for Vettel - (no insult intended)  - having the best car. Let's not dress it up (in a similar car to Alonso, I think it would've been an interesting fight) but - that's all it was. Now - you're welcome to argue that Ferrari et al should be more competitive - but I don't recall red Bull or Sebastian fans making that claim after Catalunya... quite the opposite. 

 

Proof that in journalism, the only forgiveness is "winning". 

[BRG]

"Vettel's rivals make it easy"

 

Tripe.

 

Tripe, tripe, tripe.

 

So this is yet another thread where some internet jockey criticises the media because they don't agree with his particular views.

 

Letting it die would have been the best thing.

[Bruce]

So this is yet another thread where some internet jockey criticises the media because they don't agree with his particular views.

 

Letting it die would have been the best thing.

If that is your opinion, that not responding would have been the best thing - no? 

 

Further, I'd argue that "disagreeing with the media" can be a very positive thing - and what's more - I suspect that most media, would, with some reservation, agree.

 

If you DON'T at some point disagree with the media at some juncture, I would congratulate you on your astounding flexibility...

[ElDictatore]

I was talking to a friend recently and I mentioned F1, and his response was to answer; "THAT"s not a sport! The guy who wins the WDC always has the fastest car!!" I was about to react with derision, when I realised that the only exception to this in recent memory was likely Raikkonen in 2007 when he overcame the dominant McLaren because of their inter-team squabble. 

 

 

I don't really get this argument why this shouldn't be a sport. There are non-competitive sports too. This sport just has with engineers and mechanics some more factors in it.

[ThomFi]

Why not starting with a more "accurate" or "honest"  topic title.

Instead of calling it  "Accurate headlines" it should be called " THAT's not a sport, because my favorite driver Scandalonso didn't win."

[KirilVarbanov]

And that's why they are called Headlines - to grab your attention, somehow. Any sport headline is more or less biased, also - if the journo writing in likes Alonso or Vettel, he sees the race in his own way. That's the reason why we have editors - to check your stuff afterwards. Those things do not always happen, though. 

 

On a related note, there's a law for headlines: 
 

Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states, "Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." It is named after Ian Betteridge, a British technology journalist,^[1] although the general concept is much older.^[2] The observation has also been called "Davis' law"^[3][4] or just the "journalistic principle."^[5]

Betteridge explained the concept in a February 2009 article, regarding a TechCrunch article with the headline "Did Last.fm Just Hand Over User Listening Data To the RIAA?":

This story is a great demonstration of my maxim that any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word "no." The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it.^[6]

Five years before Betteridge's article, a similar observation was made by UK journalist Andrew Marr in his 2004 book My Trade. It was among Marr's suggestions for how a reader should approach a newspaper if they really wish to know what is going on:

If the headline asks a question, try answering 'no.' Is This the True Face of Britain's Young? (Sensible reader: No.) Have We Found the Cure for AIDS? (No; or you wouldn't have put the question mark in.) Does This Map Provide the Key for Peace? (Probably not.) A headline with a question mark at the end means, in the vast majority of cases, that the story is tendentious or over-sold. It is often a scare story, or an attempt to elevate some run-of-the-mill piece of reporting into a national controversy and, preferably, a national panic. To a busy journalist hunting for real information a question mark means 'don't bother reading this bit'.^[7]

Betteridge has admitted violating his own law (writing a question headline with the answer "yes"), in an article published at his own site

 

[prty]

To the non-expert reader it might look like Autosport has certain interests in making some drivers look good and some other look bad.

 

 

Of course, to the expert one this doesn't happen at all

[Bruce]

Why not starting with a more "accurate" or "honest"  topic title.

Instead of calling it  "Accurate headlines" it should be called " THAT's not a sport, because my favorite driver Scandalonso didn't win."

 

Actually, that would NOT have been an accurate thread title, and pulling out the hackneyed "sour grapes" argument is simply an attempt to divert the "argument" such as it is. 

 

Alonso IS one of my favourite drivers, but that is not particularly germane, as A) - the contention that F1 isn't a "sport" was NOT my own (if you read my post you can confirm this) - that example was introduced as a perspective from someone who, unlike me (and, I expect, you) is not a devout follower of the sport, and B) if Alonso were winning race after race and WDC after WDC in a dominant car the same logic would and should be applied to him. 

 

The thread is about the awkward issue which the media is presented with when a driver wins in dominant machinery. How do you "lionize" a win such as this? Should one? Can you conceive of and publish a headline that does NOT fall into the usual grab bag of phrases which are used as shorthand for such situations? I think you would agree that there is a massive difference between Vettel's win in the Toro Rosso at Monza and the win of the past weekend - should this not be reflected in the headline.

 

Finally - if headlines are in fact key to eliciting the readers interest, would not a more "representative" headline be just as effective because of it's provocative nature?

 

Sorry mate - this isn't about Vettel - or Alonso - it's about media and creativity. I had hoped that the first post of this thread, had made that clear - if it did not, please accept my apologies. 

[Bruce]

And that's why they are called Headlines - to grab your attention, somehow. Any sport headline is more or less biased, also - if the journo writing in likes Alonso or Vettel, he sees the race in his own way. That's the reason why we have editors - to check your stuff afterwards. Those things do not always happen, though. 

 

On a related note, there's a law for headlines: 

 

 

Excellent post. :thumbs up:

[Bruce]

To the non-expert reader it might look like Autosport has certain interests in making some drivers look good and some other look bad.

 

 

Of course, to the expert one this doesn't happen at all

 

Actually - the middle headline is exactly what I'm talking about - now THAT is a headline - if you agree, you'll be all over it, and if you disagree you'll click the article out of pique. But once again - I was hoping that this would be less about "drivers" and more about "racing"  - the basic issue is the same - however. 

 

I do wonder if journos have to tread a very fine line when it comes to the "sport" itself - that is - a journo will likely have no problem slagging a driver as long as their reporting isn't libellous - oh - they may find it hard to secure an interview with said driver in the future, but that would likely be the extent of it. But - can you be derisive of the sport itself when it throws up a clunker? Or a series of clunkers?

 

Criticism of drivers is tolerated with reason - but I wonder if you can be critical of the "sport" (or entertainment value, or the "bang for you buck) without putting your F1 career (or at least you credentials) in jeopardy? 

 

It comes back to the Mansell thing - "Nigel - that looked easy - was it?" The answer is, of course, within the question - but the amazing thing is, that's the last time I can remember that sort of "cheekiness" from the press (please correct me if I'm wrong - there MUST be other more recent examples) - but that question, within it, carries something far more dangerous that a slight derision for the driver's efforts - it contains the suggestion that the race was less than competitive, and by extension, less than totally entertaining. 

 

We all like Kimi Raikkonen for his, er, "terseness" do we not? His "shut up, I'm driving" comments are great - refreshing. 

 

Where's the journalist who has the same propensity for provocation? 

[ThomFi]

@ Bruce

 

Well, I'm not a native speaker, so I apologize, but you are right "sour grapes" would be spot on.

And as it was said before, the "reels off" and "commanding" suggest dominance. And I don't see anyone else, other than you, who thinks that a headline like "Vettel reels off commanding win" is inaccurate or even dishonest.

Reading your comments, that's of course just my opinion, it seems to be clear what your intention really is. The headline thing seems to be just a hook, for some "whining" about the dominant Red Bull.

How did Alonso make it easy"? By having to drive a slower car from 5th on the grid???

What rubbish. I'll tell you what made it "easy" for Vettel - (no insult intended)  - having the best car. Let's not dress it up (in a similar car to Alonso, I think it would've been an interesting fight) but - that's all it was. Now - you're welcome to argue that Ferrari et al should be more competitive - but I don't recall red Bull or Sebastian fans making that claim after Catalunya... quite the opposite.

 

And Alonso's 5th place on the starting grid, whose fault was that. Massa had to sacrifice his own interests in Qualifying, to give Alonso a tow, still he was faster. Hülkenberg was 3th in Sauber.

Or Hamliton, who screwed his chances for a good start position by damaging his floor in Qualifying.

Of course they made it "easy" for Seb.

Edited by ThomFi, 11 September 2013 - 17:36.

[Bruce]

@ Bruce

 

Well, I'm not a native speaker, so I apologize, but you are right "sour grapes" would be spot on.

And as it was said before, the "reels off" and "commanding" suggest dominance. And I don't see anyone else, other than you, who thinks that a headline like "Vettel reels off commanding win" is inaccurate or even dishonest.

 

Reading your comments, that's of course just my opinion, it seems to be clear what your intention really is. The headline thing seems to be just a hook, for some "whining" about the dominant Red Bull.

And Alonso's 5th place on the starting grid, whose fault was that. Massa had to sacrifice his own interests in Qualifying, to give Alonso a tow, still he was faster. Hülkenberg was 3th in Sauber.

Or Hamliton, who screwed his chances for a good start position by damaging his floor in Qualifying.

Of course they made it "easy" for Seb.

 

Thom - I don't believe that I ever characterized the headline as "dishonest" - and perhaps to call it "inaccurate" is even a little too much - there must be a better word - but even though I AM a native speaker - I can't lay hands on it at present...   For someone who is not a "native" speaker, your English is impressive.

 

Were my intent to whine about the competition (or lack thereof) I simply would have posted in the "Red Bull dominance - Harm for the sport?" thread - (actually I did - post#200 in that thread).

 

You're right about Alonso - his starting from 5th was not Vettel's fault. One can argue convincingly that the Massa "slipstreaming" thing didn't help Alonso (though it was clearly meant too). (Why do ferrari try this every year? It doesn't seem to be particularly effective.)

 

And neither driver - imho - had an excuse to have been outqualified by the impressive Hulkenberg. Regardless - these issues had no real effect on the race - FA was past NH by the first corner, ahead of Webber by lap  - what? 3? and after that it was just a matter of time until Massa would get the "fernando is faster, Felipe.... " order. Regardless - FA got into second place and was only about 3.8 seconds (if memory serves) behind. Sebastian simply walked away from him from that point. Not at seconds a lap but in a controlled fashion (and monza is a track where returns are slim). What was really telling was that at the end, Vettel was getting calls to go easy on the car and was obviously experiencing some difficulties - but he was still walking away from Alonso until the end of the race when he started easing off.

 

There is a saying - think I got this from a movie (Le Liasons Dangereueses?) "one does not applaud the tenor for clearing his throat". Perhaps that should have been the title of this thread. Vettel cleared his throat. That's all. Vettel may have had easier wins than this - but in F1 terms it doesn't get much easier (and I am aware that this is relative). The only time he was threatened was at the very first corner where he locked up spectacularly. Beyond that, he simply walked away. To say that his win was "dominant" is correct - but I do think it gilds the lily a little. Would it not also be correct to say that the win was "easy"? Given the two words (dominant and easy) I think that the latter is more accurate and more importantly - more telling than the former. 

 

I'm not slagging vettel - we're talking about him because he WON. And as Oscar Wilde reminds us - "The only thing worse than being talked about is NOT being talked about..." . 

Edited by Bruce, 11 September 2013 - 18:27.

[BRG]

Further, I'd argue that "disagreeing with the media" can be a very positive thing - and what's more - I suspect that most media, would, with some reservation, agree.

 

If you DON'T at some point disagree with the media at some juncture, I would congratulate you on your astounding flexibility...

Interesting.  I wrote "criticise the media" but you turn it into "disagree with the media".  Which isn't the same thing at all.  So perhaps a bit of accuracy is needed on your part?

[Bruce]

Interesting.  I wrote "criticise the media" but you turn it into "disagree with the media".  Which isn't the same thing at all.  So perhaps a bit of accuracy is needed on your part?

 

 

 

BRG - I wrote "disagree" because that is how I perceive my motivation for this thread. 

 

You wrote "criticize" (apparently) because that is the way YOU perceive my motivation for this thread. And you're right - they're not the same thing at all. It is not "inaccurate" of me, however, to frame my argument in the manner I perceive it.