I have often noticed how the seeming meaning of the titles given to the F1 media reports is not at all the real meaning when you open the article and read it. Sometimes it is quite misleading. There is an interview. The reporter specifically asks a question and the interview responds to, often with just an yes, no or may be. This response of his becomes the headline and hence the news. In reality, it is not news. It is just a response. This is not a good trend and I see that with many media outlets.
The latest example is
Lotus: Raikkonen hasn't lost interest
(The above was the headline in the front page)
http://www.autosport...t.php/id/110808
Four paras into the article, the reporter by his own word states:
"
When asked by AUTOSPORT if he felt Raikkonen's interest had waned now that he was leaving Lotus, Boullier said: "Not at all. I don't think so.
I think it is more about Romain,.."
"
In this case, Boullier is actually being very quick to dismiss it. Look at the choice of words. Yet, the headline of the article was "Lotus: Raikkonen hasn't lost interest". It sounds like Lotus is willingly saying this while trying to explain why Raikkonen may have been struggling a bit in qualy recently. I opened the article ready to criticize Boullier, then I saw what really happened with the way the report was formed. I think this is misleading and false, and if I may say so 'cheap and sensationalistic' journalism. In fact, look at the way the article begins:
"Lotus boss Eric Boullier has dismissed talk that Kimi Raikkonen has lost interest in the 2013 season now that his Formula 1 future is secure with Ferrari."
Now, where is the 'talk'? I haven't heard anything recently until the reporter started talking about it to Mr. Boullier! Does one person's thought become a talk amongst the sport circle?
If a title needs to be given, it has to be correct. We can't give titles just for the sake of it at the expense of being misleading. I don't think this sort of reporting is acceptable. The above is just an example, and the purpose of the thread is not critique this one article specifically. There are many reports like this from many news sources. If a title needs to be given, it could have been something like "Raikkonen difference because of Grosjean", "Grosjean has upped his game", 'Raikkonen performance to do with Grosjean", "Long-wheel base car pays off", etc. (First of all the question on motivation was unwarranted because motivation cannot pertain only to qualy. The same driver has been a beast in the races. How do you explain that with lack of interest? Just makes no sense). I just don't think this type of reporting is okay.
Edited by SpaMaster, 24 October 2013 - 15:22.
