274 replies to this topic

[midgrid]

I agree completely (and posted in the Lewis-to-Mercedes thread as such). And, no, I'm not a Hamilton fan, and I do happen to have a sense of humour. It's a mystery to me how Hughes (whose articles, columns and race reports normally make for worthwhile reading) came up with this, and how the editor (and, presumably, everyone else in the office who knew about it) allowed it through. In my opinion, it is completely tasteless, unfunny, and regrettably open to the dreaded accusation of racism (although I believe it is simply misguided). I bet that Autosport will receive a fair few letters over this...

[PretentiousBread]

ali.unal, on Sep 14 2012, 21:50, said:

Mark Hughes wrote a piece on AUTOSPORT magazine on Lewis Hamilton in the issue of September 13th, 2012. It is a mockery of Lewis' colorful twitter language. The article focuses on a hypothetical future, in which Lewis Hamilton tries Mercedes W03 in February 2012 to assess the car. It is devised as a dialogue between Ross Brawn and Lewis Hamilton, who in my opinion was portrayed as an idiot. Here is an excerpt:

LH: “Yo kno Ross that I like you – aye? But I find that Mike he’s a slow guy. He ain’t rapidly trippin’ the songs he was drippin’ – way back in the day when he hi-fly.”
RB: “Well, I think there could be something in that, Lewis. But could we be more specific?”
LH: “I think this Merc need the big wheels, all chrome and fat be the real deal. Yo get more rear-end grip and we’re not looking so sick and I’ll drive like a **** and we’ll get real.”
RB: “But we’re limited by regulation on wheel widths, Lewis.”
LH: “I say we take our legal muscles to Brussels, campaign for us human rights. Have them legal vultures say we got grounds that be culture.”

The whole piece is written like that. It's one of the worst articles I've ever read coming from an highly regarded journalist. No point, no humour, no fineness.

Mark Hughes is normally my favourite of the F1 journos. If I didn't know that he's a big fan of Lewis Hamilton (wrote a biography of him) then based on this article I would assume he's a 'detractor', but since I know he's just having a lighthearted poke at him, it didn't bother me that much. I was quite stunned though when I first started to read it, realising that the entire piece was in this vein, it seemed a little out of place and weird.

[Kvothe]

I was extremely disappointed that a writer of Hughes calibre would resort to such a seemingly low level of journalism, or that a supposedly reputable magazine such as autosport would even consider publishing it.

As a piece of satire it fell flat on it's face and while I don't think it was racially motivated I do feel there there was sense of ignorance ingrained throughout.

Edited by Kvothe, 14 September 2012 - 21:00.

[Disgrace]

Kvothe, on Sep 14 2012, 22:59, said:

I was extremely disappointed that a writer of Hughes calibre would resort to such a seemingly low level of journalism, or that a supposedly reputable magazine such as autosport would even consider publishing it.

As a piece of satire it fell flat on it's face and while I don't think it was racially motivated I do feel there there was sense of ignorance ingrained throughout the piece.

I think it would be particularly daft to so much as suggest it was (you haven't).

[Buttoneer]

I've just merged into this thread the comments originally removed from the Lewis to Mercedes one. It means that some people will appear to have posted the same opinion twice but that happens anyway.

Please PM one of us if you wish to comment or have any issues.

This thread is no doubt going to be explosive but that should not prevent you from sticking to the rules. Please avoid discussion of racism unless it directly relates to motorsport and please report those who break the rules, do not attack them, do that we can deal with it.

Thank you.

[Kvothe]

Disgrace, on Sep 14 2012, 22:00, said:

I think it would be particularly daft to so much as suggest it was (you haven't).

Indeed

[bub]

bourbon, on Sep 14 2012, 21:04, said:

A writer would have to be a real jackass to print something of that nature, imo. It is belittling and what the statements are saying is not funny - the only humor one would derive is its very very poor attempt to make fun of a culture.

Agreed.

[MP422]

F1Newbie, on Sep 14 2012, 18:38, said:

He's the type of people "not racist but..." you know, those who like to make fun of people because of their culture, religion or race but don't like to be class as racist?

That article is racism.



.... but baby... you can't taste racism.... lol. every see that movie.

[Disgrace]

bourbon, on Sep 14 2012, 22:04, said:

I hope you are joking about it being an article. A writer would have to be a real jackass to print something of that nature, imo. It is belittling and what the statements are saying is not funny - the only humor one would derive is its very very poor attempt to make fun of a culture.

Which culture?

Edited by Disgrace, 14 September 2012 - 21:37.

[midgrid]

Buttoneer, on Sep 14 2012, 22:01, said:

I've just merged into this thread the comments originally removed from the Lewis to Mercedes one.

[MP422]

Disgrace, on Sep 14 2012, 22:35, said:

Which culture?

Here's where it gets naughty,

RB: “But we’re limited by regulation on wheel widths, Lewis.”
LH: “I say we take our legal muscles to Brussels, campaign for us human rights. Have them legal vultures say we got grounds that be culture.”

[gm914]

Hughes is a jackass.

[F1Newbie]

Lewis uses a lot of abbreviation when he tweets and sometimes uses some American slang. Other drivers use British slang but no one seem to have a problem with that. Mark Webber tweets Australian slang too but there's no problem. They only have problem when Lewis is using American slang like " my man or homie" which is the equivalent of " mate or lad" . They are either racist or Anti-American, IMO.

Edited by F1Newbie, 14 September 2012 - 21:49.

[Viktoria]

I was able to read this article.

I have to tell you what, I'm not coming from the streets, yes I had a wonderful childhood and YES I have no idea what it means to comes from the street. I have NO idea what it means to face racism, but this article from Mark Hughes..

- is DIGUSTING
- is against people with others cultures
- is against people who were not so lucky to born with the silver spoon in the mouth

THIS ARTICLE IS ONE OF THE MOST DISGUSTING THINGS WHAT I EVER READ ABOUT A F1 DRIVER!! (esp. about this one with a darker skin color)

MARK HUGES HAS TO BE FIRED!!!!!!

[jonpollak]

Who said Explosive?

Jp

[AvranaKern]

I don't think it is Autosport's fault to publish it. It shouldn't come down to their decision when contemplating to or not to publish such "controversial" articles. It should be writer's responsibility and writer's only. I'm pretty sure the editor in chief had to say something about it but left it at that as it would have contradicted to free speech had Autosport not allowed it to be published. It's Hughes' article and he should bear the whole responsibility, not the magazine itself IMO.

[Buttoneer]

Lazy, on Sep 14 2012, 19:00, said:

Mocking is not racism, otherwise Ali G would be racist and I don't think Lewis would accept that. That kind of language is in no way exclusive to black people. Racism is a serious accusation that should not be used lightly.

Whether it's poorly written humour or otherwise I cannot say having not read it, context could be crucial.

The article is prefaced with the following;
"If Lewis Hamilton really talks as he tweets, and if he really does join Mercedes, what would he make of the current car? Time to listen in to some street talk from deepest Stevenage"

That's the context and everything else is represented reasonably well by the excerpts posted here.

[jonpollak]

Oh for christ's sake....
no one get's it?
Jp

[AvranaKern]

jonpollak, on Sep 15 2012, 01:06, said:

Oh for christ's sake....
no one get's it?
Jp

Gets what?

[ayali]

Gotta laugh at the hysterics here
Just Hughes poking a bit of fun at Lewis
Lewis invites that with his silly tweets

Smiled when I read it and moving on, it's not a big deal imo
racist lol, GTFO everything not complimentary of Lewis is considered racist by some here

[Kvothe]

jonpollak, on Sep 14 2012, 23:06, said:

Oh for christ's sake....
no one get's it?
Jp

We got it

Explosive...

[jonpollak]

Kvothe, on Sep 15 2012, 00:10, said:

We got it

Explosive...

No, you didn't..
Jp

[maverick69]

Lol. Was Mark pissed?

[robefc]

ali.unal, on Sep 14 2012, 23:03, said:

I don't think it is Autosport's fault to publish it. It shouldn't come down to their decision when contemplating to or not to publish such "controversial" articles. It should be writer's responsibility and writer's only. I'm pretty sure the editor in chief had to say something about it but left it at that as it would have contradicted to free speech had Autosport not allowed it to be published. It's Hughes' article and he should bear the whole responsibility, not the magazine itself IMO.

Couldn't disagree more, they are entirely responsible for what is in their magazine, free speech has nothing to do with it.

[jonpollak]

"He ain’t rapidly trippin’ the songs he was drippin’ – way back in the day when he hi-fly.”
Great mid verse lyric..
Jp

[goldenboy]

haha crazy dave coulthard. But not as funny.

[P123]

jonpollak, on Sep 14 2012, 23:14, said:

"He ain’t rapidly trippin’ the songs he was drippin’ – way back in the day when he hi-fly.”
Great mid verse lyric..
Jp

I think Hughes was no doubt rather chuffed with his efforts. Still cringeworthy that it actually made publication.

[F1Newbie]

maverick69, on Sep 15 2012, 00:12, said:

Lol. Was Mark pissed?

He's pissed because he's leaving. Reminds me of Piers Morgan reaction when Van Persie left Arsenal

[SCUDmissile]

I am really surprised this was allowed to be printed. Seriously, what did the editors think when they saw that?

Quote

Oh this will go down well with all our readers, a vast majority of whom are Hamilton fans...

But wow, I am pretty disappointed in MH for that. He was a respectable journalist (who I rarely agree with, as IMO his article always have a touch of bias) but respectable nonetheless. Will lose a lot of that now.

Things like this is why a new team might just be the ticket Lewis needs.

[Coral]

Buttoneer, on Sep 14 2012, 23:05, said:

The article is prefaced with the following;
"If Lewis Hamilton really talks as he tweets, and if he really does join Mercedes, what would he make of the current car? Time to listen in to some street talk from deepest Stevenage"

That's the context and everything else is represented reasonably well by the excerpts posted here.

I think Hughes was trying to be "funny" but I still don't think he should have mocked Lewis like that. Lewis does not talk like that...in fact he has always come across as being very articulate. What has he done to deserve this?

Hughes owes Lewis an apology.

[scheivlak]

jonpollak, on Sep 14 2012, 22:14, said:

"He ain’t rapidly trippin’ the songs he was drippin’ – way back in the day when he hi-fly.”
Great mid verse lyric..
Jp

Now put this in a new version of Louie Louie.... "Me gotta go..... Let's give to them right now!"

[jrg19]

Embarrassing.

[speng]

Viktoria, on Sep 14 2012, 17:51, said:

I was able to read this article.

I have to tell you what, I'm not coming from the streets, yes I had a wonderful childhood and YES I have no idea what it means to comes from the street. I have NO idea what it means to face racism, but this article from Mark Hughes..

- is DIGUSTING
- is against people with others cultures
- is against people who were not so lucky to born with the silver spoon in the mouth

THIS ARTICLE IS ONE OF THE MOST DISGUSTING THINGS WHAT I EVER READ ABOUT A F1 DRIVER!! (esp. about this one with a darker skin color)

MARK HUGES HAS TO BE FIRED!!!!!!

Yes

[AvranaKern]

robefc, on Sep 15 2012, 01:13, said:

Couldn't disagree more, they are entirely responsible for what is in their magazine, free speech has nothing to do with it.

Free speech has everything to do with it. The column within a magazine is like an ambassy within a country. You cannot apply your own rules onto it. If you're not happy with your writer, you sit down and talk, persuade, discuss, etc. but in no way you can interfere with his/her product unless it's a blatant offensive or anything like that. If it still doesn't suit your way, then you can always terminate the contract.

Edited by ali.unal, 14 September 2012 - 22:36.

[undersquare]

It's extreme stereotyping and caricature, based on race. Correct grammar for the white guy and absurdly bad grammar for the black guy. The only thing that might save the author from being thought a racist is his history of being pretty fair and positive about Lewis.

I can only suppose that in his head Hughes sees nothing wrong with what he's caricaturing, but it's very, very poorly judged. At best.

[robefc]

ali.unal, on Sep 14 2012, 23:30, said:

Free speech has everything to do with it. The column within a magazine is like an ambassy within a country. You cannot apply your own rules onto it. If you're not happy with your writer, you sit down and talk, persuade, discuss, etc. but in no way you can interfere with his/her product unless it's a blatant offensive or anything like that. If it still doesn't suit your way, then you can always terminate the contract.

If you considered it blatantly offensive I would assume that you would interfere by not publishing it? And I was under the impression that editors, or rather sub editors, interfere with 'the product' all the time by, erm, editing.

Am I missing something?

[Disgrace]

Coral, on Sep 15 2012, 00:22, said:

I think Hughes was trying to be "funny" but I still don't think he should have mocked Lewis like that. Lewis does not talk like that...in fact he has always come across as being very articulate. What has he done to deserve this?

Hughes owes Lewis an apology.

That is the point though, it's an exaggeration, which was aimed to be funny and obviously wasn't. Lewis has tweeted (seldom at that) things like "chillin wit my homie" which Hughes has taken as material to exaggerate with. The 'if Lewis Hamilton really talks as he tweets' context is pretty good to keep in mind.

goldenboy, on Sep 15 2012, 00:15, said:

haha crazy dave coulthard. But not as funny.

Exactly, is everyone lambasting this article in contempt for Sniff Petrol as well? The only difference is Sniff Petrol is funny predominantly, but that shouldn't make the material more or less offensive in principle.

Edited by Disgrace, 14 September 2012 - 22:48.

[AvranaKern]

robefc, on Sep 15 2012, 01:41, said:

If you considered it blatantly offensive I would assume that you would interfere by not publishing it? And I was under the impression that editors, or rather sub editors, interfere with 'the product' all the time by, erm, editing.

Am I missing something?

I should have explained better: "If you considered it blatantly illegal." (1)

Regarding editors doing, erm, editing, well there are types of them, none of which have (or should have) the power to decide whether it's publishable or not unless (1). (A big disclaimer: I'm talking about magazines, not literature).

Yes, in my point of view, you are missing something. Writers are (should be) free to write anything in their column, whereas editors or boards are (should) only free to choose not to work with him, not block the articles. Autosport did the right thing to allow it to be published. It's not their fault or responsibility, for my part at least.

[FenderJaguar]

the "what if Lewis talks as he tweets" explained it pretty much. It got the quotes from pretty poor to pretty good. I'd say it is satire with an aftertaste. It's not meant to be just funny. It is also a questionmark about the image Lewis gives through his twitter.

Edit - reading some of the posts above, just like to add that freedom of speech is always better than not having it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

Edited by FenderJaguar, 14 September 2012 - 22:54.

[rhukkas]

ali.unal, on Sep 14 2012, 23:03, said:

I don't think it is Autosport's fault to publish it. It shouldn't come down to their decision when contemplating to or not to publish such "controversial" articles. It should be writer's responsibility and writer's only. I'm pretty sure the editor in chief had to say something about it but left it at that as it would have contradicted to free speech had Autosport not allowed it to be published. It's Hughes' article and he should bear the whole responsibility, not the magazine itself IMO.

Editor in chief - the clue's in the title.

It is entirely the editor's responsibility to edit what goes in the magazine. This has nothing to do with free speech. A magazine saying "I don't want that sh*t in my magazine" is not blocking free speech. It obviously reflects badly on a magazine that it publishes such low quality work. To say the publishers has no responsibility on its content is laughable.

[Coops3]

ali.unal, on Sep 14 2012, 23:50, said:

I should have explained better: "If you considered it blatantly illegal." (1)

Regarding editors doing, erm, editing, well there are types of them, none of which have (or should have) the power to decide whether it's publishable or not unless (1). (A big disclaimer: I'm talking about magazines, not literature).

Yes, in my point of view, you are missing something. Writers are (should be) free to write anything in their column, whereas editors or boards are (should) only free to choose not to work with him, not block the articles. Autosport did the right thing to allow it to be published. It's not their fault or responsibility, for my part at least.

The editor of the magazine is the one who is ultimately in charge of it and who is - to a large extent - responsible for the content, so obviously gets the final say on what gets published.

[rhukkas]

ali.unal, on Sep 14 2012, 23:50, said:

Yes, in my point of view, you are missing something. Writers are (should be) free to write anything in their column, whereas editors or boards are (should) only free to choose not to work with him, not block the articles. Autosport did the right thing to allow it to be published. It's not their fault or responsibility, for my part at least.

You believe in dictating to magazine owners how they should run their publications? Sorry, but that's tosh and far from being 'free'.

If I owned a publication and a writer sent something to me which was total garbage, you think I would publish it? You think I would put my whole magazine and staff's jobs on the line in some weird perverted idea in saving a misguided idea of free speech?

I believe that a publisher should be FREE to do AS THEY please with the magazine they OWN. If they want to publish unedited articles from writers.. fine. If they want to be more careful and edit articles or not include them... FINE TOO!

Edited by rhukkas, 14 September 2012 - 23:01.

[FranDaMan]

I follow Lewis's tweets and none of them really sound like that. The whole article sounds like it belongs in a crappy meme comic on 9gag.

[as65p]

F1Newbie, on Sep 14 2012, 23:46, said:

Lewis uses a lot of abbreviation when he tweets and sometimes uses some American slang. Other drivers use British slang but no one seem to have a problem with that. Mark Webber tweets Australian slang too but there's no problem. They only have problem when Lewis is using American slang like " my man or homie" which is the equivalent of " mate or lad" . They are either racist or Anti-American, IMO.

Or just making "fun" of someone pretending to be something he isn't. Hamilton is doing that by using language and habits of american rappers, which he clearly isn't. That's childish and deserves a bit of mocking - independantly of skin colour, in the same way it would be childish if I'd start to talk like a white ghetto kid, despite never have been one.

The only true problem I see here is that the whole thing lacks wit, and severely, that's why I put the " around fun, cause it's not, IMO. Hughes is clearly out of his depth writing stuff like that, but that's the only real problem. Racism or anti-americanism doesn't reall come into it, but predictably, and sadly, many in here are only too ready to play that card, once again.

[gricey1981]

Disgrace, on Sep 14 2012, 23:41, said:

That is the point though, it's an exaggeration, which was aimed to be funny and obviously wasn't. Lewis has tweeted (seldom at that) things like "chillin wit my homie" which Hughes has taken as material to exaggerate with. The 'if Lewis Hamilton really talks as he tweets' context is pretty good to keep in mind.



Exactly, is everyone lambasting this article in contempt for Sniff Petrol as well? The only difference is Sniff Petrol is funny predominantly, but that shouldn't make the material more or less offensive in principle.

Autosport is supposed to be relatively serious though....

Maybe they are going down a more "the sun" route now though which is fair enough i guess,

[AvranaKern]

Coops3, on Sep 15 2012, 01:55, said:

The editor of the magazine is the one who is ultimately in charge of it and who is - to a large extent - responsible for the content, so obviously gets the final say on what gets published.

What I have been trying to say, well, that shouldn't be the case if that's the case and I know it's the case. Editor in chief had his/her final say by recruiting that writer. From that point on, he is free to write any s**t he sees fit (again, unless it's illegal and to the extent that it's in the domain of free speech). You, as editor in chief, cannot (should not) give your decision on the matter before it's published. If you have anything to do about it, you have to do it after it's published, because that's what you promised by recruiting that writer.

That's the way I feel it should be. I don't know what editor in chief of Autosport had said or if he had discussed with Hughes, but I am glad that they let him published it. Perhaps, there wasn't even a discussion. My point was and still is, if there was a discussion or disagreement among editors whether it was to be published, then Autosport did the right thing to make it published. I'm not a native speaker, but I am sure I have been making my point as clear as I could.

[P123]

FenderJaguar, on Sep 14 2012, 23:51, said:

the "what if Lewis talks as he tweets" explained it pretty much. It got the quotes from pretty poor to pretty good. I'd say it is satire with an aftertaste. It's not meant to be just funny. It is also a questionmark about the image Lewis gives through his twitter.

Edit - reading some of the posts above, just like to add that freedom of speech is always better than not having it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

Why is there a question mark about his image on Twitter. Because he uses slang? The wrong type of slang? Twitter is made for slang.

No doubt LH uses different slang to probably the rest of the grid and what the rest of the F1 circus would be familiar with (much of it is alien to me too and no doubt most of the F1 viewing public), but is that reason enough to pen and publish something like the article discussed here, even behind the wall of humour? It's as misjudged as Hamilton's telemetry publication. The parody wears thin pretty quickly and the subject and tone does leave the article open to question, which is a shame as Hughes is a very good journo.

[midgrid]

Disgrace, on Sep 14 2012, 23:41, said:

Exactly, is everyone lambasting this article in contempt for Sniff Petrol as well? The only difference is Sniff Petrol is funny predominantly, but that shouldn't make the material more or less offensive in principle.

Sniff Petrol and other such sites are intended to be silly and humorous (and also extremely hit-and-miss, although that's besides the point), though, and all the drivers are mocked in some way or other. Autosport is supposed to be a professional magazine - I'm not against the odd humorous reference or aside, but giving the most prominent opinion column over to it is inappropriate, in my opinion. Also, because Autosport doesn't have a history of producing such material, it could seem that Hamilton is being singled out.

[Disgrace]

gricey1981, on Sep 15 2012, 01:05, said:

Autosport is supposed to be relatively serious though....

Maybe they are going down a more "the sun" route now though which is fair enough i guess,

This article isn't masquerading as a serious factual article though, which is why tabloids as you have mentioned frowned upon. The quality of features would be perhaps the better argument, but I don't read Autosport magasines and cannot comment on that.

as65p, on Sep 15 2012, 01:04, said:

Or just making "fun" of someone pretending to be something he isn't. Hamilton is doing that by using language and habits of american rappers, which he clearly isn't. That's childish and deserves a bit of mocking - independantly of skin colour, in the same way it would be childish if I'd start to talk like a white ghetto kid, despite never have been one.

The only true problem I see here is that the whole thing lacks wit, and severely, that's why I put the " around fun, cause it's not, IMO. Hughes is clearly out of his depth writing stuff like that, but that's the only real problem. Racism or anti-americanism doesn't reall come into it, but predictably, and sadly, many in here are only too ready to play that card, once again.

100% agree. It's offensively unfunny, not to be confused with offensive.

Edited by Disgrace, 14 September 2012 - 23:09.

[rhukkas]

as65p, on Sep 15 2012, 00:04, said:

Or just making "fun" of someone pretending to be something he isn't. Hamilton is doing that by using language and habits of american rappers, which he clearly isn't. That's childish and deserves a bit of mocking - independantly of skin colour, in the same way it would be childish if I'd start to talk like a white ghetto kid, despite never have been one.

Knowing nothing of Hamilton and who he spends a lot of his time with sociailising, I love how you generalize all 'american rappers' and that clearly 'Hamilton isn't one'. I didn't know being an 'American rapper' have you a licence to adopt a certain dialect/vocab.

"I am sorry you can't speak like that you are not an 'American rapper'" said no american rapper ever.

And you accuse Hamilton of being childish lol