Hello all,
Apologies for coming to this discussion now, but I have only just come across it.
Having worked at Autosport (largely on the National desk) for over eight years and recently moved over to edit Motorsport News, I thought I should comment! There have been some very interesting points here, some spot-on observations (e.g. John Ashton), but also some assumptions/falsehoods. I shan't attempt to cover everything in one post, but please feel free to ask questions/raise points.
So, a few quick thoughts, particularly from the post that started the thread...
First off, neither publication ever simply cuts and pastes press releases. Much of the news comes from press releases because so many teams/series/clubs now send out their info in that way. I am sure everyone would agree those news stories shouldn't be left out simply because there has been a release about it. One of our jobs is to filter/enhance/explain the news that is there. If a story is big enough and time allows, we will contact those concerned to get our own quotes and info. If not, then the releases will always be rewritten to take out the PR factor. Of course, the ideal is exclusive news stories, which both titles still get, but it is much harder these days for reasons others have already pointed out. It is also not unheard of for PRs to rush out a release if they hear we are going to run a story.
As for a bunch of lads who never go to events, I feel I must stick up for both titles! Matt James, for example, has worked on MN for nearly 20 years. I have reported on one form of the sport or another for over 10. Rob Ladbrook has been here over 7 years. And that's half MN's office team! Similarly, all of us cover and/or go to events. Generally, everyone has their own championships to cover, but pretty much everyone goes to extra events as well. To me, that's one of the most important (and fun) aspects of the job: going to events and speaking to those involved. People go into motorsport journalism do it for the love of it. Those that don't quickly leave.
As pete53 implies, part of the problem is that the appeal of motorsport is less these days. For the younger audience, there are loads more things to do, while longer-term enthusiasts get (understandably) frustrated at things like performance balancing, single-make categories, pay drivers etc. Similarly, many people say the sport (and/or indeed, the mags) were 'better back then', but when was that exactly? I have spent a lot of time in the archive (and happily spent my teenage years reading my dad's collection of old Autosports and Motor Sports) and the sport and publications have changed continuously over the years.
What the publications should cover and focus on is, indeed, a key issue. To me, Autosport has breadth in terms of international coverage, while MN is UK-focused and covers things Autosport does not. There is, of course, overlap. For example, I don't believe either could do away with F1, even though the importance of it to each mag is different.
I'd be very interested to hear what people think MN (and Autosport) should do more or less of. The problem I have found previously when asking this is that people tend to answer with 'what I like/am involved in', and going into the depth everyone wants for everything would make the publications far too big and expensive. Contrary to popular belief, both titles do still make money. Similarly, many say they want blow-by-blow reports, but many (certainly international) events are so well covered that, by the time you get to Wednesday or Thursday, you know the 'what'. That's why there are attempts to explain the how, why etc.
This has got far longer than I intended, so I shall stop here for now (other than to make a slightly different point below)! Thank you for you time.
Best regards,
Kevin Turner
Motorsport News Editor