79 replies to this topic

[ensign14]

This is why Cricket Journalism is so much  better that Football's

 

Plus they've got plenty of time to think about things waiting for tea to finish or Boycs to score a run or something.  Only time one can philosophize watching football is when you're 2-0 down and there are 15 minutes to go, a depressingly common experience for some of us.

[Mallory Dan]

I'm with you on that Ens, as a Canary.....

[nicanary]

I'm with you on that Ens, as a Canary.....

See my username. Story of our lives.......

[David Birchall]

John Ruston: " Case of liqueur".

I fink that was it...

[Mallory Dan]

See my username. Story of our lives.......

Life a little better now NI? Is for me !

[Alan Cox]

What's all this twaddle got to do with Mark Hughes and Motor Sport??

[Mallory Dan]

Nothing Alan.

 

But please get some more pics on 'Club Racing photos' or whatever its called. Got any MacPhersons, Ken Bailey, Bob Fernally, Cyd W, Neil Bold, Tony D, Graham Wallwork, Stu Lawson, Sir Tony S, Derek Walker, Vernon D, Mr M of Tarporley, John Lewis, Red Rose, Bobby H of Deansgate. And most of all Lodge Corner Agencies and their various Dulons, Hawkes, and Crossle FSVs

[mfd]

If you read the current issue, there's a lovely piece by Mark Hughes about the Ron Dennis V's Max Moseley story. For once a journalist telling the full story (apart from the News of the World bit)

[Jack-the-Lad]

Pardon me if I've missed something, but has Nigel Roebuck left Motor Sport?  He is the F1 correspondent, is he not?

 

Jack

[PCC]

He is the F1 correspondent, is he not?

No, he's the Editor-in-Chief.

[Jack-the-Lad]

No, he's the Editor-in-Chief.

Thank you, Peter.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Presumably the actual editor is still D Smith.

[BRG]

Presumably the actual editor is still D Smith.

This sets out who is who

 

A whole lot of editors, makes you wonder who is doing the writing that they are all editing.  Until you scroll down and find our own DCN, listed as a mere 'contributor' who only merits a black and white picture.

 

Of course , there are those you say that any picture taken of Doug only comes out in black and white....  

Edited by BRG, 01 March 2014 - 21:15.

[PCC]

This sets out who is who

 

Until you scroll down and find our own DCN, listed as a mere 'contributor'...

I expect that's simply a reflection of Doug's professional relationship with the magazine, not of the esteem in which he is held there. Back in the early days (summer of 2000) of "Ask Nigel" on the Autosport website, I wrote and asked what small core of books Nigel would consider crucial to a motorsport enthusiast's library. After listing a couple of DSJ's titles, the first choice he made was: "I would have 'BRM', by Doug Nye, for its wealth of detail and anecdote".

[DogEarred]

I'm with you on that Ens, as a Canary.....

 

A good friend of mine is a Canary fan also.

 

Must be deafening listening to the three of you shouting your heads off at Carrow Road on match days....

[D-Type]

This sets out who is who

 

A whole lot of editors, makes you wonder who is doing the writing that they are all editing. 

~

I accept that the market has changed with the times and the magazine has changed to follow the changing demograph of the readers.  But I do wonder whether it really was a better magazine 40-60 years ago when the bulk of the magazine was written by one editor and one continental correspondent, assisted by various other contributors over the years.

[kayemod]

I accept that the market has changed with the times and the magazine has changed to follow the changing demograph of the readers.  But I do wonder whether it really was a better magazine 40-60 years ago when the bulk of the magazine was written by one editor and one continental correspondent, assisted by various other contributors over the years.

 

I accept that times have moved on, but I doubt if Jenks and The Bod would be impressed by the Mark Hughes writing style. His piece on Ron Dennis's departure from running the McLaren F1 team tells us little that we didn't already know, and if any MS editor had gone through it striking out superfluous adverbs and adjectives, it would have been about a page shorter, though maybe overwritten padding is what's required. The piece was further spoiled by Hughes obvious dislike of Dennis which shone through very clearly, and whatever anyone thinks of Ron as a person, his achievements are the real measure of the man's worth. Who was it said "We make history, you just write about it"?

[mfd]

Rob, that was an article I enjoyed, which is where I came in.

 

Undoubtedly Ron Dennis has qualities & made great achievements with McLaren, but Hughes writes from experience & I didn't think he was doing a hatchet job. If you know, or have met or worked for the man, his characteristics are (if I can put it kindly) rather odd.

[Ross Stonefeld]

 The piece was further spoiled by Hughes obvious dislike of Dennis which shone through very clearly, and whatever anyone thinks of Ron as a person, his achievements are the real measure of the man's worth. Who was it said "We make history, you just write about it"?

 

Ahhh, if only this attitude was applied to writing about someone like Schumacher 

[PCC]

...if any MS editor had gone through it striking out superfluous adverbs and adjectives, it would have been about a page shorter, though maybe overwritten padding is what's required.

 

Who was it said "We make history, you just write about it"?

So I guess you've abandoned the claim that he models his writing style on Hemingway...

 

The person I've heard connected to that quote was Frank Lloyd Wright.

[john aston]

Whilst DSJ's stuff was always a good read and doubtless WB was a source of great erudition I can't say I ever found his writing especially outstanding in many respects and some of it was just achingly dull. Which yet again will put me in the minority who thinks that MS is better now than it has ever been , despite my now being officially an Old Fart.  Autosport was a far  better read   in the late 60s and early 70s , especially when Pete Lyons was covering GP work - as a twenty something back then much of MS was long winded and stuffy. Heresy to some. Sorry.

[kayemod]

So I guess you've abandoned the claim that he models his writing style on Hemingway...

 

No, the target of that comparison was Andrew Frankel, Mark Hughes waffles, not sure who he could be compared to.

[PCC]

No, the target of that comparison was Andrew Frankel.

Doh!

[kayemod]

So I guess you've abandoned the claim that he models his writing style on Hemingway...

 

The person I've heard connected to that quote was Frank Lloyd Wright.

 

Surely not, Frank Lloyd Wright said many quotable things, but I don't think that was ever one of his.

 

One of my favourites from FLW is  "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools, let's start with typewriters", which is more or less where I started a few posts back.

[PCC]

Heresy to some.

Not to me. I agree, DSJ was very informative, sometimes very entertaining, but he was no Lyons. And there's very little in the current MS that I don't enjoy; it's full of characters with strong views and the knowledge to back them up.

[PCC]

Surely not, Frank Lloyd Wright said many quotable things, but I don't think that was ever one of his.

He may not have been the first to say it, but he definitely used the line. I recall years ago reading the introduction to a book on Modernism in which the author told the story of introducing himself to FLW as an architectural historian, to which Wright replied, "Ah, so you just write about history, you don't make it." Or words to that effect.

[RA Historian]

 Which yet again will put me in the minority who thinks that MS is better now than it has ever been , despite my now being officially an Old Fart.

I tend to agree with John. Now understand that I came on board with MS when it did its radical relaunch in the mid 1990s, and had only bought the very occasional copy at the newsstand in the years prior. But with its new focus,it quickly became my favorite mag. As time has gone on, print journalism of race reporting has vanished to the internet. So for my purposes a magazine which concentrates on the history of the sport has definite value.

 

Having said that, I still greatly miss On Track magazine for its reporting of all racing series every two weeks. But as I said, those days are gone.

[DogEarred]

In the 45 years or so that I've been reading MS, at a minimum, there has been enough of interest in it to keep me subscribed. It has, by it's own admission, suffered in the last few years. It has recently made efforts to recover the situation and by necessity has had to change. As a monthly, it can never satisfy those who need to know on which lap Charles Pic used his second tear off visor, or whatever and sensibly, has always left that to others.

 

But what it seems to have done in the past 2 or 3 years, is to attract the better or well known/regarded motor sport writers. Whether some of them are great in world writing terms may be debatable but generally speaking they are the best.

 

My question is what attracts them to MS? - Money? (understandable but does MS have enough resources to pay large salaries?) - Status? (Can by argued that MS is the most prestigious magazine  - The chance to write more about your own particular sphere/interest? - Three more weeks time to write/research & improve quality? - Nicer working atmosphere? - Better coffee machine - Better Christmas party? 

 

Maybe one of the good fellows could be so kind as to enlighten us?

[Ross Stonefeld]

Id venture the change in ownership is a large factor.

[john aston]

In the 45 years or so that I've been reading MS, at a minimum, there has been enough of interest in it to keep me subscribed. It has, by it's own admission, suffered in the last few years. It has recently made efforts to recover the situation and by necessity has had to change. As a monthly, it can never satisfy those who need to know on which lap Charles Pic used his second tear off visor, or whatever and sensibly, has always left that to others.

 

But what it seems to have done in the past 2 or 3 years, is to attract the better or well known/regarded motor sport writers. Whether some of them are great in world writing terms may be debatable but generally speaking they are the best.

 

My question is what attracts them to MS? - Money? (understandable but does MS have enough resources to pay large salaries?) - Status? (Can by argued that MS is the most prestigious magazine  - The chance to write more about your own particular sphere/interest? - Three more weeks time to write/research & improve quality? - Nicer working atmosphere? - Better coffee machine - Better Christmas party? 

 

Maybe one of the good fellows could be so kind as to enlighten us?

 

 

  I am not one of the 'good fellows ' but I suspect that people of the quality of Messrs Arron., Roebuck and Taylor especially relish the opportunity to write for people who can read without moving their lips. have an attention span a lot longer than an ant   and whose knowledge of motor sport isn't confined to watching effone on telly and who realise that there was a world championship before Lewis Hamilton or even James Hunt .