140 replies to this topic

[glorius&victorius]

This morning I read Ed Gorman's blog in timesonline.co.uk, and yesterday I read that sportspromedia article on Matt Bishop and Richard Woods (FIA communications)

http://timesonline.t...osley-brin.html
http://www.sportspro....com/bishop.htm

I've always regarded Autosport as the most credible and unbiased source on F1 news. But after reading these 2 articles, I really tend to believe that Autosport is not enjoying a freedom of reporting, and is very much evolving in a media channel for the FIA (just like Berlusconi controlling MediaSet in Italy).

Perhaps the moderators will ban me from this BB. I do not care. In case I get banned: It was nice sharing my thoughts with y'all over the last few years

[Jones Foyer]

"Losing" is the correct word.

[glorius&victorius]

Originally posted by Jones Foyer
"Losing" is the correct word.

thanks

[Gilles4Ever]

Theres a seperate forum for this http://forums.autosp...hp?s=&forumid=1

its description: Forum for technical support, feedback and questions about the Atlas F1 website. Suggestions and constructive criticisms are welcome as well.

[glorius&victorius]

Originally posted by Gilles4Ever
Theres a seperate forum for this http://forums.autosp...hp?s=&forumid=1

its description: Forum for technical support, feedback and questions about the Atlas F1 website. Suggestions and constructive criticisms are welcome as well.

you mean that hidden away forum that nobody looks at. Thanks, but I wanted to give my thread more visibilty

[Anomnader]

to be fair, for Autosport, Motorsport is its main market, its lifeblood, for the times and telegraph and others, its almost insignificant sideline, as its lifeblood, it has to be circumscript

[Gilles4Ever]

Originally posted by glorius&victorius


you mean that hidden away forum that nobody looks at. Thanks, but I wanted to give my thread more visibilty

So you dont want to discuss it constructively with them you just want to rant publically?

[Ross Stonefeld]

I'm sorry but you can no longer take Ed Gorman, and arguably The Times, seriously or objectively.

Autosport/Haymarket doesn't have any stake in the Mosley saga. They just have to report the facts as they happen. It's not wise legally or journalistically to speculate or accuse on something like this. Compare that to the News International publications which this week have been acting not as newspapers but as propaganda machines.

[Anomnader]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I'm sorry but you can no longer take Ed Gorman, and arguably The Times, seriously or objectively.

Autosport/Haymarket doesn't have any stake in the Mosley saga. They just have to report the facts as they happen. It's not wise legally or journalistically to speculate or accuse on something like this. Compare that to the News International publications which this week have been acting not as newspapers but as propaganda machines.

Propaganda depends on what side of the divide you are on.

[King Stromba]

Originally posted by Gilles4Ever


So you dont want to discuss it constructively with them you just want to rant publically?

He didnt say that did he? He said he wanted a more prominent position for the thread.

[kar]

I'm going to take a poke in the dark and say the reason the Rubython stories weren't published was because of the utterly discredited nature of the author and it's surprising very few others published anything along those lines either.

On the Bahrain story that's easy, it's just gone 9 o'clock and unlike some websites Autosport.com fact check their stories first. They ran one story last year if you remember that they got wrong and the fall out over that was pretty serious.

Imagine if they ran the Bahrani story and it turned out to be bogus?

Autosport have to be very careful what they run since they are the pre-eminent news source.

More so than Ed Gorman it seems of late.

[matt1979]

I too have lost all faith in Autosport. For me the main issue is the lack of variety of journalism, and since Nigel Roebuck left, the magazine lost much of it's spark.

There's lots I could say about how I feel the magazine isn't what it was, but I'll probably get kicked off, so feel free to pm me if you want to discuss further.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by Anomnader


Propaganda depends on what side of the divide you are on.

That's the key, why do you have to come down on one side or the other? That's not journalism.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Anomnader


Propaganda depends on what side of the divide you are on.

or if it worked on u or not

[Anomnader]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


That's the key, why do you have to come down on one side or the other? That's not journalism.

no, but for the reader, its for him to decided whether its termed news story or propoganda, which is usually built by preconceived ideas already.

[jcbc3]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I'm sorry but you can no longer take Ed Gorman, and arguably The Times, seriously or objectively.

Autosport/Haymarket doesn't have any stake in the Mosley saga. They just have to report the facts as they happen. It's not wise legally or journalistically to speculate or accuse on something like this. Compare that to the News International publications which this week have been acting not as newspapers but as propaganda machines.

I don't care about Gorman and the Times. I care about Autosport. And I am also disappointed. The lack of reporting when the story came out was poor. You didn't have to report the details of the NOTW story. But, in my opinion, it was a fact that a story involving the FIA president and allegations of a sexual character was broken. There is nothing culpable in a report of that kind. But apparently you have been so coved by the powers that not even that was allowed to be put on the site.

I also agree that Autosport don't have to put anything on their site that isn't a verified fact. Or that they have the choice to do whatever they like. But in making that decision they are also saying that they aren't journalists in the true sense of the word. It appears that a wire line to Reuters could suffice.

Now let me ask you this. Is it a stated policy of the Autosport editors that no opinion pieces must be put up?

I think it is fine if you have a policy of only stating verifiable facts and let the readers draw their own conclusions from these facts. It just make for an uninteresting site.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Why are you singling out Autosport? Yes the NOTW ran the story, but they are a taboid. Yes the Times jumped all over it, but they were told to. They are part of the hunt.

Alan Henry didn't report on it in The Guardian until Monday after the FIA released a statement. It was reported in the normal slot in the sports section F1 gets. Respectable papers tended to wait until there was official statements from anyone involved. Otherwise you're reporting on tabloid rumours. And when has Autosport or any serious newspaper done that?

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by jcbc3

Now let me ask you this. Is it a stated policy of the Autosport editors that no opinion pieces must be put up?

My understanding is;
Magazine = opinion
News = undeniable fact
Grapevine = rumour and 'funnies'

[glorius&victorius]

Originally posted by matt1979
I too have lost all faith in Autosport. For me the main issue is the lack of variety of journalism, and since Nigel Roebuck left, the magazine lost much of it's spark.

There's lots I could say about how I feel the magazine isn't what it was, but I'll probably get kicked off, so feel free to pm me if you want to discuss further.

I didnt loose all faith... as far as what happens on the track and the weekends they will still be my prime source....

But anything related to the FIA seems extremely careful, and I don't buy it anymore.

As for constructively: has been answered by King Stromba

[Anomnader]

what I'm not happy about is autsport only reporting on half the Bahrain story, surly that is easy to confirm?

[potmotr]

SportsPro is a product of the infamous Tom Rubython. He has lost several substantial lawsuits to members of the Formula One fraternity. I treat anything he writes as total bullshit.

[glorius&victorius]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Why are you singling out Autosport? Yes the NOTW ran the story, but they are a taboid. Yes the Times jumped all over it, but they were told to. They are part of the hunt.

Alan Henry didn't report on it in The Guardian until Monday after the FIA released a statement. It was reported in the normal slot in the sports section F1 gets. Respectable papers tended to wait until there was official statements from anyone involved. Otherwise you're reporting on tabloid rumours. And when has Autosport or any serious newspaper done that?

If I have to read FIA official statements I might as well go to the FIA website. Isn't the value of Autosport that they have the inside perspective on F1?

[glorius&victorius]

Originally posted by Anomnader
what I'm not happy about is autsport only reporting on half the Bahrain story, surly that is easy to confirm?

You mean about the letter from the Crown Prince to max. Yes that's what I am referring to as well... tell the whole story, not the half story.

If Ed Gorman is able to get that story, and autosport not, then get a reporter like him.

[as65p]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Why are you singling out Autosport? Yes the NOTW ran the story, but they are a taboid. Yes the Times jumped all over it, but they were told to. They are part of the hunt.

As you were told not to, I suppose. And each acted as he was told. Which makes Autosport level with the Times, not too bad, after all.

I don't think it's such a big deal, rather business as usual. There is not true objectivity to be expected from those close to the subject. People who expected Autosport to make a big story out of this were probably just a tad unrealistic, that's all.

[glorius&victorius]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Why are you singling out Autosport? Yes the NOTW ran the story, but they are a taboid. Yes the Times jumped all over it, but they were told to. They are part of the hunt.

Alan Henry didn't report on it in The Guardian until Monday after the FIA released a statement. It was reported in the normal slot in the sports section F1 gets. Respectable papers tended to wait until there was official statements from anyone involved. Otherwise you're reporting on tabloid rumours. And when has Autosport or any serious newspaper done that?

The Times jumped all over it... as it is news that concerns F1. Yet they showed how a story like that can be reported without a tabloid template.

[matt1979]

Hang on a second, are people honestly arguing that it is possible for any publication to be objective? Journalism, can only ever be subjective as it's written by people with experiences and opinions.


My issue with Autosport is that the journalism has become bland, it seems to just try to report 'facts', but that's what i's first few pages are for. It's articles should be opinion.

[potmotr]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I'm sorry but you can no longer take Ed Gorman, and arguably The Times, seriously or objectively.

Autosport/Haymarket doesn't have any stake in the Mosley saga. They just have to report the facts as they happen. It's not wise legally or journalistically to speculate or accuse on something like this. Compare that to the News International publications which this week have been acting not as newspapers but as propaganda machines.

I'm sorry, but I think you're expressing a rather large conspricy theory here. The News titles all work as independent operations. I think it's naive to think that fat cat bosses are stalking the news floor dictating who the papers should hammer as part of a winder political agenda. The truth is, the Mosley story is a fantastic yarn, and any self respecting journalist would be leading the charge just as Ed Gorman is. Can you imagine if it were the boss of the FA involved in this? Or the head of FIFA? Or FINA? Every paper in the world would be going hard, but because this is Max Mosley everyone seems scared. Gorman and the Times should be winning awards for their coverage, not being cut down and questioned.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by glorius&victorius


The Times jumped all over it... as it is news that concerns F1.

No, they jumped all over it because they're the same group as the News of the World. The biggest mistake Max Mosley ever made was suing The Times for libel. Go after a paper in the UK for libel and they will do everything they can to end you. It wasn't news that concerned F1, it was news that concerned them. It was office politics.

Originally posted by as65p


As you were told not to, I suppose. And each acted as he was told. Which makes Autosport level with the Times, not too bad, after all.

I don't think it's such a big deal, rather business as usual. There is not true objectivity to be expected from those close to the subject. People who expected Autosport to make a big story out of this were probably just a tad unrealistic, that's all.

Where do you guys get this idea that people in Haymarket are told what to do by the FIA? What about all the other papers that didn't give Mosley 'The Times Treatment' ? NOTW/The Times are the exception in this case, not the rule. They have an agenda, everyone else is just going to report what is factually happening. And they'll double and triple check it first.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by potmotr


I'm sorry, but I think you're expressing a rather large conspricy theory here. The News titles all work as independent operations. I think it's naive to think that fat cat bosses are stalking the news floor dictating who the papers should hammer as part of a winder political agenda. The truth is, the Mosley story is a fantastic yarn, and any self respecting journalist would be leading the charge just as Ed Gorman is. Can you imagine if it were the boss of the FA involved in this? Or the head of FIFA? Or FINA? Every paper in the world would be going hard, but because this is Max Mosley everyone seems scared. Gorman and the Times should be winning awards for their coverage, not being cut down and questioned.

You'd be amazed at the amount of current and former News International employees who would agree with what I am saying.

[Mika Mika]

I think autosport are doing a pretty good jod to be fair...

If you think they are being afraid of the FIA/Max then look at their top to newest F1 stories..

BMW, Mercedes slam Mosley's behaviour
Bahrain Prince asked Mosley not to attend

[potmotr]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


You'd be amazed at the amount of current and former News International employees who would agree with what I am saying.

I'm a former News employee and can honestly say I never saw any of the things we're referring to here. I think it's a cracking yarn and Ed Gorman is the only guy to have the fire in his belly to go after Mosley.

[jcbc3]

I belive that you are correct in the asesment of the Murdoch empire, Ross.

But I still don't understand why it wasn't newsworthy to Autosport that such allegations had been made.

I am also awaiting the Autosport opinion on the suitability of Mosleys continued precidency. But I have a suspicion I might wait a very long time for that.

[Andy35]

The difference here of course is the Times journalist is definitely in one camp whilst the FIA and Max are in the other, so they can afford to be more vocal. Other journals, either online or written need to be more circumspect so that they are seen to be neutral, unless of course where it is a blog and the author can say his point of view (See Alan Henry's blog for autocar).

Here Autosport is not doing a blog, they are reporting facts and they seem to be doing it in a neutral and measured way. Seems fair enough to me.

The problem is that Max and his PR staff at the FIA give the impression of being pretty calculating and ruthless (as indicated by one of the links put in the first post) so the readers assume that beneath the calm exterior of the written prose things are happened unbeknown to us and some sort of implied pressure is being put on. Maybe it is, but if so that is not a sad reflection on the journals and journalists but the people applying that pressure.

On a connected topic, I like the spin the FIA said for keeping Max in London, legal matters.

Regards
Andy

[glorius&victorius]

Originally posted by potmotr


I'm sorry, but I think you're expressing a rather large conspricy theory here. The News titles all work as independent operations. I think it's naive to think that fat cat bosses are stalking the news floor dictating who the papers should hammer as part of a winder political agenda. The truth is, the Mosley story is a fantastic yarn, and any self respecting journalist would be leading the charge just as Ed Gorman is. Can you imagine if it were the boss of the FA involved in this? Or the head of FIFA? Or FINA? Every paper in the world would be going hard, but because this is Max Mosley everyone seems scared. Gorman and the Times should be winning awards for their coverage, not being cut down and questioned.

Indeed

Coverage around the FIA is overshadowed by fear.... the Martin Brundle case didnt happen for nothing. It was a pre-calculated move to take a prominent journalist aside and threathen his pitt access in front of all journalist. And for what? For commenting on how the FIA is run??

Those kind of tactics only take place in countries where censorship is maintained, and sadly as it seems, in the world of F1.

That is my point of discussion: that it seems that there are limits set to the freedom of reporting. Autosport in my opinion is just a victim of the current situation, not a participant nor a supporter of it.

Perhaps because they gained the number one position over the years in F1 reporting and that position is now at stake.

But it is that same great inside reporting that made them the number one (No 1 in my opinion) and now that they are faced with the choice of reporting about a controversial FIA president. They choose not to and with that they stop doing what made them great.

In light of this I then do admire Ed Gorman (though he could become the next target for the FIA)

[LeD]

the old AtlasF1 was responsible, but it also had spark: it had speculative pieces, it had informed comment, the grapevine used to genuinely amusing.

I don't castigate autosport.com over the Mosley affair that much. It was an unprecedented story, and noone except the perpetrators of the story knew how to react.

But recently I have come to the reluctant conclusion that for hard facts on F1 - "news" - I don't need to pay a subscription. For the magazine or journal pieces I don't mind paying a subscription for as long as the quality of the writers warrants it. I mean absolutely no disrespect to the current batch of writers, but you ain't grabbing my attention (and no I don't need 5-whore stories to grab my attention). On the news front, we always used to say "ït isn't so until Atlas - autosport - tells us so". But even on the straight reporting front in recent times I have been feeling that autosport is slow in publishing straight news items, and there is ever more agency cut and pasting rather than in-house reporting.

[kar]

I think Ed Gorman signed away his integrity with the _way_ he has reported on this issue, as much as anything else. You'd be forgiven for thinking he was writing in NOTW, not in formally respected broadsheet columns.

'Max Mosley, son of Fascist Leader Oswald, was accused of being involved in a Sex Romp with Nazi undertones.'.

All of it is true, but the impression given is completely different from what specifically is written.

Gorman I really held in high regard because of his 'eyes wide open' style last year. It now seems he's well and truly a fully paid up member of the piranha gang.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by jcbc3
I belive that you are correct in the asesment of the Murdoch empire, Ross.

But I still don't understand why it wasn't newsworthy to Autosport that such allegations had been made.

I am also awaiting the Autosport opinion on the suitability of Mosleys continued precidency. But I have a suspicion I might wait a very long time for that.

Read the magazine or the journal, there may be something in there. It would seem inevitable at this stage. But you should never go into the news of any website or publication expecting opinion.

It was newsworthy, when there was fact to report. Just like when you get drivers silly season. There's going to be tons of rumours, news will report what can be confirmed.

[MacJack]

After Sunday's race, journalists from Autosport go actively get comments from drivers, teambosses, and basically from everybody involved with Sunday's activities about how they saw the race unfolded.

When any team signs a new driver, again journalists from Autosport go actively get comments from team members and driver about how they see their common future then will be.

When Max Mosley gets his ass wiped by hooker in nazi orgy, journalists from Autosport just sit in office, and we cannot here read any comments from teambosses or from anybody else about how they see what Mosley's position as a leader of FIA is.

The decision of being inactive in Mosley's case definitely puts a shadow on Autosport's independence over FIA.

[as65p]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld

Where do you guys get this idea that people in Haymarket are told what to do by the FIA? What about all the other papers that didn't give Mosley 'The Times Treatment' ? NOTW/The Times are the exception in this case, not the rule. They have an agenda, everyone else is just going to report what is factually happening. And they'll double and triple check it first.

Now let's compare Autosport to a similar german site, motorsport-total.com. I'm fully aware that they often copy stuff from Autosport, but otherwise they are a reasonably respectable F1 site.

In this particular case they were quicker and more detailed than Autosport, without being tabloid or sensationalist about it. They just reported the news as they came out.

I think it's obvious that Autosport tippy-toes around this stuff, and I can see why that disappoints some readers. Not me, I sort of expected that.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by MacJack


When Max Mosley gets his ass wiped by hooker in nazi orgy, journalists from Autosport just sit in office, and we cannot here read any comments from teambosses or from anybody else about how they see what Mosley's position as a leader of FIA is.

The decision of being inactive in Mosley's case definetely puts a shadow on Autosport's independence over FIA.

Do you see quotes from teams drivers or FIA people somewhere else? Please share them, because at the moment they don't exist. Unless you mean the avalanche of statements that have come out this morning and are being reported everywhere, including Autosport.

[glorius&victorius]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


No, they jumped all over it because they're the same group as the News of the World. The biggest mistake Max Mosley ever made was suing The Times for libel. Go after a paper in the UK for libel and they will do everything they can to end you. It wasn't news that concerned F1, it was news that concerned them. It was office politics.

perhaps they all reported because being part of the same group. I do not think that the law of economics didnt apply here.

But at the same time there was news concerning the (fitness of) leadership of a world ruling body.

On another note: the best inside comment I read today was by Ed Gorman: that so far none of the big car manufacturers has jumped to his defence. In fact no one except Bernie. That silence does say much about how this news is welcomed in the community.

[Mika Mika]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


Do you see quotes from teams drivers or FIA people somewhere else? Please share them, because at the moment they don't exist. Unless you mean the avalanche of statements that have come out this morning and are being reported everywhere, including Autosport.

I think Autosport are doing a good job.......

[kar]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
But you should never go into the news of any website or publication expecting opinion.

Indeed there's plenty of sites that do that already anyway, spitpass and gutterprix spring to mind.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by glorius&victorius



On another note: the best inside comment I read today was by Ed Gorman: that so far none of the big car manufacturers has jumped to his defence. In fact no one except Bernie. That silence does say much about how this news is welcomed in the community.

Read the quotes very carefully, they aren't condemning him (yet). They are condemning what has been reported, which may or may not turn out to be true. They have accomplished their goal of being seen to be saying something, but actually saying very little.

Oddly if you want to see some sensible reporting on how people are covering this, go read Balfe's column on Pitpass

[glorius&victorius]

Originally posted by MacJack
After Sunday's race, journalists from Autosport go actively get comments from drivers, teambosses, and basically from everybody involved with Sunday's activities about how they saw the race unfolded.

When any team signs a new driver, again journalists from Autosport go actively get comments from team members and driver about how they see their common future then will be.

When Max Mosley gets his ass wiped by hooker in nazi orgy, journalists from Autosport just sit in office, and we cannot here read any comments from teambosses or from anybody else about how they see what Mosley's position as a leader of FIA is.

The decision of being inactive in Mosley's case definitely puts a shadow on Autosport's independence over FIA.

Thats what I am referring to.
And the question is why??

How much coverage did the certified-half-wit comments get?

[Kaz-F1]

Its a private matter for Mr Mosley

If he was caught doing it in FIA offices it would be relevant to F1 but it is not, it is to do with his own private time

Total non story

Kaz xx

[Ross Stonefeld]

I'll probably get lynched for commenting on internal affairs, but I can garuntee you the teams were asked for comment, and no one has yet. Don't shoot the messenger when there's nothing to relay.

[potmotr]

Originally posted by kar
I think Ed Gorman signed away his integrity with the _way_ he has reported on this issue, as much as anything else. You'd be forgiven for thinking he was writing in NOTW, not in formally respected broadsheet columns....

Gorman I really held in high regard because of his 'eyes wide open' style last year. It now seems he's well and truly a fully paid up member of the piranha gang.

Mr Kar,
You seem to suggest that just because Gorman is writing for a former broadsheet he should adopt the boring and toothless style of an old broadsheet.
The NOTW broke the story but Gorman has well and truely led the news agenda since.
Surely that is the most any employer could ask from their journalists.
I think a few of the old boys who have been writing on F1 since the early 70s are too close to Bernie and Max, even if it is not conscious.

[potmotr]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I'll probably get lynched for commenting on internal affairs, but I can garuntee you the teams were asked for comment, and no one has yet. Don't shoot the messenger when there's nothing to relay.

Have you seen the BMW and Mercedes joint statement Ross? Mosley is a finished. He has to be...

A joint statement from BMW and Mercedes-Benz:
The content of the publications is disgraceful. As a company, we strongly distance ourselves from it. This incident concerns Max Mosley both personally and as President of the FIA, the global umbrella organisation for motoring clubs. Its consequences therefore extend far beyond the motor sport industry. We await a response from the relevant FIA bodies.

[potmotr]

Originally posted by Kaz-F1
Its a private matter for Mr Mosley

If he was caught doing it in FIA offices it would be relevant to F1 but it is not, it is to do with his own private time

Total non story

Kaz xx

Total non-story!!!??? How can this be a non-story? The head of one of the world's most significant sporting bodies is a pervert! And it is now public knowledge! Tell me, if this is a non-story, what is a good example of a cracking story for you?