140 replies to this topic

[karlth]

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.

Totally agree. Autosport have done what they always do best, report facts.

[Lord Snooty]

Well, whether Max thinks this or not, it is clear his time is up.

The manufacturers are critical to the survival of F1 & they are in the game for BRAND reasons (forget all the guff about racing developments feeding into production cars.. barely, if ever, happens). Max's activities are perceived to be damaging the F1 brand and hence damaging the brands of all those who participate. They (the manufacturers) simply won't stand for it and will be ruthless in protecting their brand value (particularly given the amounts they spend in F1).

Max is toast. He just doesn't quite realise it yet (as his extraordinarily gauche response to BMW & Mercedes shows).

As for the reporting; well, it is blatantly obvious that he was set up by the News International team. Just the number of cameras and the speed with which the videos hit the streets reveal how premeditated it all was. But so what? He was into this stuff, obviously been doing it for a while and it was a disaster (for Max) waiting to happen.

Suing a major News International title merely precipitated the revelations. Whether he can take action against them on 'privacy grounds' is moot; all they have to do in defence is to cite the self-evident 'public interest' reasons for revealing Max's dirty little habits.

Autosport probably have been a little slow in going to print with this and that is most likely due to Max's PR hard men (Mr. Woods et al) putting the bite on them not to publish. So yes, Autosport probably are a little intimidated by Max's powers. But when the story gets this big (and the killer statements are from the Japanese; it is clear they view this as both a disgrace and a loss of face which means curtains for Max) even the threat of sanctions from Max's PR enforcers lose their power and then even Autosport feels it can publish.

All in all, the net result of this should be, in my view, good for F1.

As the old saying has it, power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absolutely. Max has been guilty of massive hubris and its time to clear out the stables for the good of the sport.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by paranoik0
I was just reading and thinking "even I know that's a really **** choice of words, Max". After 4 manufacturers and a prince have slammed him in a single morning, I think he's history now, regardless of whether is that fair or not.

But back to this thread, I do get the feeling Autosport and the "respectable" publications were veeeeeeeeeery careful initially with this whole thing. Now that it seems clear Max's position is very fragile and most likely won't survive the aftermath, they're being more comfortable to write negative things about him.

[Welsh]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
It's the first day of the next GP, you knew everyone was going to have their statements out this morning. Now that they're all physically in front of the press they can't be silent on it. There's no conspiracy, there's no censorship.

During any of the F1 press conferences I would be amazed if any of the drivers or team bosses commented on the Max story - this story has nothing to do with the Bahrain GP.......

[Lord Snooty]

Originally posted by Welsh


During any of the F1 press conferences I would be amazed if any of the drivers or team bosses commented on the Max story - this story has nothing to do with the Bahrain GP.......

this story has nothing to do with the Bahrain GP

Perfectly correct in a narrow racing sense but I doubt it will stop the journos asking the teams and drivers for their views. Which I equally doubt they will actually give. Expect a lot of PR spun non-answers to the 'Max question'.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I don't think any driver will say anything. And I don't think the teams have responded yet, but the manufacturers through their corporate HQ's.

[Gareth]

Kar - agree with your take on Gorman on this. It's disappointing he's being hailed as "brave" on this issue, to me he's just chief pack dog straining on Murdoch's leash.

As one medie commentator pointed out (either Greenslade in the Guardian or someone in the telegraph), the Times ran no less than 5 items on Monday morning, including such "vitally important" gems as: "children of the nazi's, where are they now?".

I am also not impressed with any site that runs a moderated comments board to their blog, only allows to be posted items that are favourable, and then runs the following in their article:

think you only have to look at the way the comments are going on this blog to see what the view is about Mosley among Formula One fans. People who read this blog and write on it are probably more passionate and knowledgeable about the sport than most, so I would argue their views are significant and important

Dishonest and misleading as ever.

[HP]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Notice they said the contents of the publication, not Mosley's actions. They are only confirming that the allegations exist (which everyone already knows) not whether they are true.

Why are you being so defensive? Max Mosley made an (IMO half hearted) apology.

http://forums.autosp...&postid=3070387

"Regrettably you are now familiar with the results of this covert investigation and I am very sorry if this has embarrassed you or the club. Not content with publicising highly personal and private activities, which are, to say the least, embarrassing, a British tabloid newspaper published the story with the claim that there was some sort of Nazi connotation to the matter. This is entirely false."

In this quote you'll find IMO obvious admission that whatever was posted on NOWT was him.

So it's not a question, about the content. It's all about Mosley's actions.

[Jodum5]

Question: Why does the Journal suck so much?

[Tom Moro]

I'll tell you one party that ain't gonna touch this and that's ITV. They have a damn good reason too - the race is broadcast before the watershed!!!! I guess the ITV announcer could read out a rider before the programme begiins saying that it 'contains graphic imagery which may offend some people'. Like Jackie Stewart, Brundle, Sterling Moss, Dave Richards, Toyota, BMW, Honda, Mercedes, Jews, the al Khalifas and the list goes on and on...

[Tom Moro]

for getting the EGM exclusive and for asking Alonso about Maxxx. Surely the journalists who are gonna get the real big bucks payments and global coverage are the ones who get a comment (not a no comment) from one of the auto clubs about what they really think of this. There are plenty of auto clubs out there so it surely shouldn't be that tough - won't the MSA speak? Go for it guys and get the truth before the others beat you to it!

[Jackman]

So why don't you go and get the quotes, Christian?

[Tom Moro]

Wrong man and already discussed in another thread. I'm not Christian Sylt, Tom Rubython, Ed Gorman, Rupert Murdoch, Martin Brundle or even Christian Danner. I am keen to hear from one of the auto clubs though and hopefully Autosport.com will come up with the goods

[lukywill]

atlasf1 did their job.

the mosley 'affair' wasn´t on the major portuguese news. was on the worst free newspapers.

certainly it will make the news in the future as a new way to pursue news stations about personnel and private news.

[Tom Moro]

Top show on getting us the news from ADAC
Good on you guys.

[Daveofoz]

SHAME on Autosport.com!

I am so disapointed in you guys right now. You are supposed to be the go-to 'organ' of choice for Formula 1 and motorsport generally, the "Authority on Formula 1, WRC, etc"


To date you coverage of the Mosley affair has been roundly criticised by the readers/members and you have refuted them and justified yourselves at every opportunity. Please don't ask me to count the posts, just scroll up through this thread, when you're done there are several others too.

Now you don't have a single piece in this week's journal on the subject. Just like last week.

Nothing to say, nothing to add, no analysis, for example: technically speaking - how can the FIA president be stood-down from his post, who has covered what and how, opinion pieces, legal aspects, something.... anything at all!!!!

You had an opportunity to present a fair analysis of the situation, in an unbiased way.

But nothing.

(oh, except Matt Beer observing that there was "just enough story lines to distract from the furore over the FIA president's alleged Saturnalian pursuits" in the Review)

If I didn't care so much about the web site, if it wasn't so much an ingrained part of my everyday life, I wouldn't be so upset.



There was a post from Ross explaining how the BB and the website were more or less mutually exclusive, however there has been consistency in the overall lack of anything being expressed in the journal/news element of Autosport.com. So one turns to the BB.

And as if to add further insult (in keeping with the furtherance of the silence posture), some rather draconian measures appear to have been taken on the BB that prevented people freely expressing their opinions. People that were not being confrontational in any way, but rather being informative and helping us to fully comprehend all the goings on around the world - in near real time. This is very much more than can be said for Autosport.com.

Shame on Autosport.com

:-(



D

[Ross Stonefeld]

Errr what I said was the admin of the BB is run seperately and very independently of the editorial content of the site, to dispel ideas that posts being deleted/threads being closed/people being banned is not dictated by the company or the brand, but rather by the style of the BB; which isn't exclusive to our BB alone.

[J]

Hoping to be convinced otherwise...

-J

[Ross Stonefeld]

I've told you the situation, but feel free to think whatever you like.

[J]

Ross,

My post wasn´t a reply to yours. I was attempting to reply to Daveofoz and specifically to the part:

"And as if to add further insult (in keeping with the furtherance of the silence posture), some rather draconian measures appear to have been taken on the BB that prevented people freely expressing their opinions. People that were not being confrontational in any way, but rather being informative and helping us to fully comprehend all the goings on around the world - in near real time. This is very much more than can be said for Autosport.com."

-J

[gawfie]

For a while now Autosport.com has been scared to have any real opinions on matters concerning F1 I've noticed. The Grapevine piece in the journal is usually the most they'll risk.

So for me its always Autosport for news now and PlanetF1.com for comment and opinion.

[J]

Just cancelled my subscription.

-J

[Anders Torp]

Originally posted by Daveofoz
Nothing to say, nothing to add, no analysis, for example: technically speaking - how can the FIA president be stood-down from his post, who has covered what and how, opinion pieces, legal aspects, something.... anything at all!!!!

You had an opportunity to present a fair analysis of the situation, in an unbiased way.

But nothing.

Yeah, real real lame.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Please remove me from your signature.

[kar]

Originally posted by J
Just cancelled my subscription.

-J

Just renewed mine.

[Mat]

Originally posted by kar


Just renewed mine.

mine too.

[Jodum5]

Even though I bitch and moan about the Journal, I didn't feel bad when my subscription was automatically renewed. Unfortunately there isn't much else out there for reliable f1 content (and I appreciate its coverage of other racing), so I feel it's worth ~$50 a year. It's definately better than buying the magazines which are always a few weeks or a whole month old here in the U.S (at least where I check). I do wish there were more dynamic journal stories (i fondly remember the Berger farewell story, the Bira story with Dupasquire (sp?), the f3000 story, Dave Cameron, etc.).

[Anders Torp]

Originally posted by Jodum5
Even though I bitch and moan about the Journal, I didn't feel bad when my subscription was automatically renewed.

Neither did I when mine was renewed. It's still the best. But sometimes I get the impression that they are afraid of controversial subjects. Maybe this is the reason (from Damien Smith's farewell column, november 2007) :

And my personal lowlights? There aren't many, but dealing with the FIA springs to mind. Say no more.

[kar]

I let my lapse for a week, realised it was still valuable for me, and at 29£ not that expensive for a site I visit about 500 times a day... :-) And 3000 times on race weekends!

I do think 2005, early 2006 was the high water mark for the journal, oh well with Bira now a consultant, maybe she has time to write again. I miss her writing

[dank]

Originally posted by J
Just cancelled my subscription.

-J

Well I'm sure Haymarket won't mind that, I've just started my first subscription to Autosport to make up for it.

[Jerome]

As a former journalist, and current teacher in journalism and professional writing I really want to add something: that big corporations and organisations like the FIA (or the FIFA, or the UEFA, or the IOC) have in their midst a plethora or former journalists. What do they do? They spin stories, or unspin stories. They know how journalists work, they know who newspapers and newsoffices work, and what their rules and moral codes are. And they use it against them.

I do not want to delph too deeply into this (probably totally boring for you'all), but please remember that any sportorganisation sees the press as a way to a means: their own profit. They will slander the press in general, bribe journalists with stories/quotes/tips, steer, manipulate, and do everything they can to get the press in the 'right' (meaning: their) direction.

I think Autosport is very trustworthy website, but sometimes the strong journalistic codes they use are being used against them. And that's why, I think, sometimes stories are not being written or published that we, as readers, would like to see.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I don't think there is. The FIA is in lock down. There's no comment from anyone on anything. We run the press releases/statements from the autoclubs, but other than that what is there? I'm glad we aren't speculating and covering gossip and are just reporting the facts at hand.

[Jerome]

I will give a specific example. Just imagine, it's shortly after the statement by BMW and Mercedes in which they declare the contents of the NOTW publication unnacceptable. At the morning meeting at a Motorsport-website the editor-in-chief says: 'Okay, now Mosley is really under pressure. What can we write now?'
'Well,' answers the legal expert, 'I could analyse how the teams and organisators could do if they really want to get rid of Mosley. You know, the procedures, the legal hooks and beartraps, etc.'
'You mean: only an analysis of "how, if indeed" instead of "shoulda, coulda"?
'Exactly.'
The legal expert writes the story. He does nothing to indicate he wants Mosley gone or not, he just writes what procedures within the FIA could be started if anyone or a lot of people wanted to push Mosley out.
The article appears, and Mosley and his press-officer react like a bull stung by a horsefly. 'The publication of XXXXX was totally uncalled for. There is no indication at all that there's a strong representation within the FIA that wants to get rid of the FIA. This is just another attempt of the press to scandalise Mr. Mosley's position as president of the FIA.'

Now, I am not saying that this indeed happened at Autosport or any other magazine or website. But I do know that this particular story, explaining how the procedure will be if the FIA wants to get rid of Mosley, I only saw appear last week. Which is a bit... late. And odd, too. Perhaps I am totally wrong, but in my own experience the editors in chiefs of several publications have said in that morning meeting: 'The right idea at the wrong time. If we publish it now, Mosley will claim we are taking sides.'

[Jodum5]

A story on how if indeed the FIA Senate wanted to rid themselves of Max would run the week before their vote, not months before hand, i think.

Personally, i've always seen autosport.com's news as their strong point. It's the journal i'm dissapointed with.

[Kooper]

Originally posted by Jodum5
It's the journal i'm dissapointed with.

I agree completely regarding the journal. Kindest words I can describe the journal is 'weak'.

Take a look at a year ago for comparison - http://www.autosport...dex.html/id/110


I do wonder why autosport has not addressed the Mosley issue. The lack of any type of editorial regarding the facts of the case and the effect or potential effect upon F1

A summation of the facts consolidated in one article would be helpful. Explaining how the FIA EGM works, who has votes... etc would be helpful. Having to sift through the forum for such (mis)information is not the ideal way of finding facts. Maybe I'm mistaken to think this is autosports job...

Thy ship appears rudderless. Whether out of fear from the FIA, FOM or still recovering from this http://forums.autosp...&threadid=96790

[Anders Torp]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
We run the press releases/statements from the autoclubs, but other than that what is there?

There you are doing your very best and still people complain. Jesus.

[Ross Stonefeld]

No I think the customers are just expecting something that simply isn't available, anywhere.

[Anders Torp]

There are some suggestions in this and other threads that shouldn't be all that hard to follow.

[Timstr11]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I don't think there is. The FIA is in lock down. There's no comment from anyone on anything. We run the press releases/statements from the autoclubs, but other than that what is there? I'm glad we aren't speculating and covering gossip and are just reporting the facts at hand.

Ross, you seem to be speaking on behalf Autosport.com. What exactly is your current role there. I remember you used to be the Photo editor.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Still am at the time of this posting.

[Fat Freddy's Cat]

Interesting thread. Autosport has to check it's facts and sources more carefully than tabloids - these kind of stories are not really in it's domain. But scandal undoubtedly shifts extra copies, which is why stories like the Spygate affair make the front page. I don't have a problem with that, as long as the story is relevant to racing and not celebrity.

My problem with Autosport is a long-standing one. They have a pro-British agenda (understandable), but they often overstep the mark. If, like me, you're not really a fan of any particular team, it's easy to notice the anti-Ferrari propaganda they slip in, or the tabloid style suggestion they use when dealing with 'enemies' - Max being a good example.

In last week's edition, Steve Cooper was talking about Max's comments on a illegal intrusion into his private life. He then quoted from the McLaren Spygate transcript, showing Max to be a hypocrite for suggesting that the emails should be included as evidence regardless of how they were obtained. Does Mr Cooper think we're all Sun readers? It really is an insult to the intelligence of the reader to dredge though everything the man had said in the WMSC court to try and find some evidence of hypocrisy.

When any journalist uses a term like "but, in some quarters...", you know they're inventing a source to sustanciate one of their own dodgy opinions. Steve Cooper behaves like a message board troll sometimes, rather than a responsible, impartial journalist for specialist press. Or president of the Ron Dennis fan club. I suppose he'd have a fight on his hands with Matt Bishop for that one now.

I actually gave up my Autosport mag subscription because I was fed up with Nigel Roebuck using his column to air his personal beef with Ferrari every single week. I switched to Motorsport mag instead. Imagine my horror when.....