Jump to content


Photo

Conflicts of interest


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 24,534 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 22 November 2016 - 12:28

Hi, regarding this?

Autosport ‏@autosport  13m13 minutes ago
Q&A: Zak Brown talks his new McLaren role, chasing a title sponsor, Le Mans and more. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/127220/q-and-a-zak-brown-new-f1-challenge-at-mclaren  #F1

 

Q. How will your McLaren job impact on your non-executive chairman role at Motorsport.com?
ZB: I have a few roles such as Motorsport.com, Cosworth and my racing team [United Autosports] and those are all to stay. I spend my time on the business side of Motorsport.com and not the editorial side. Therefore, figuring out how to create better products and build organisations has nothing to do with editorial, so I don't see any conflict. It's only a conflict if you turn it into one, and that I don't intend to do.

 
It is insulting to expect people to find this a reasonable response. It is a massive conflict of interest to have the same guy running a team and the press that reports on that team. I am stunned that this is just apparently going through on the nod. Not even bothering to stick in some kind of token Chinese wall?

 

This absolutely stinks, Autosport!



Advertisement

#2 Kristian

Kristian
  • Member

  • 4,365 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 22 November 2016 - 12:41

Joe Saward says its an almost certainty he'd have to give up his motorsport.com role. 

 

I agree, it would be better for him to stand down for transparency's sake, no matter how good his intentions. 



#3 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,281 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 22 November 2016 - 12:55

At least the McLaren thread wont need a shitload parts anymore if we have to ignore every motorsport.com related news about them.



#4 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 6,964 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 22 November 2016 - 16:38

I'm inclined to agree, Sophie. 



#5 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 24,534 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 22 November 2016 - 17:25

I'm inclined to agree, Sophie.


I presume the staff find it outrageous too. I am just giving my perspective from a reader point of view that I see this as unacceptable. After all, why did we ever bother having safeguards to protect conflicts of interests anywhere? Everyone could have saved themselves so much faff if the people who owned everything could just promise they would never abuse their position instead.

#6 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 25,898 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 22 November 2016 - 19:33

As conflicts of interest go, this is pretty tame.  The worse that could happen is that Motorsport/Autosport make themselves look stupid by being partisan and damage their own reputation.  No biggie really as far as the rest of us are concerned surely?



#7 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 24,534 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 22 November 2016 - 19:40

As conflicts of interest go, this is pretty tame.  The worse that could happen is that Motorsport/Autosport make themselves look stupid by being partisan and damage their own reputation.  No biggie really as far as the rest of us are concerned surely?

 

 

There are any amount of things that could happen in theory under such circumstances, such as stories unfavourable to McLaren or McLaren's position being suppressed. How would we know this had happened? Or stories that advance McLaren's politics being championed or played down depending on whether it is in his team's interests. 

 

This stinks.  



#8 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 25,898 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 22 November 2016 - 20:18

There are dozens of other outlets for news so if they did that, then the worse that could happen is that Motorsport/Autosport make themselves look stupid by being partisan and damage their own reputation.  Try to get this in perspective - it really isn't worth losing any sleep over.



#9 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 24,534 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 22 November 2016 - 20:53

There are dozens of other outlets for news so if they did that, then the worse that could happen is that Motorsport/Autosport make themselves look stupid by being partisan and damage their own reputation.  Try to get this in perspective - it really isn't worth losing any sleep over.

 

No, there really are far fewer than it seems. If you look, most of them are supplied by, or owned by either the Motorsport.com empire themselves or are powered by GMM who seem to produce little of their own news but instead report on what the other journalists are reporting. I would say this is an industry in far from rude health, with apparently ever fewer independent publications reporting with purely the fans' interests at heart. After all, since when does the motorsport press in general have a reputation for speaking truth to power? It has in my opinion some stellar individual (and brave!) journalists but that's not the same thing. My personal opinion is that the paddock lives in fear of its pass being taken away.

 

No, you have the most prestigious motorsport publication in Britain and its biggest direct competitor and the biggest British racing team all owned by the same people and apparently no plans for safeguards to actually prevent editorial interference, merely a statement of intent that there will be no conflict. So thanks for the somewhat patronising concern but if I feel like saying this is a shitty development, then I will suit myself (unless someone shuts me up, of course.)



#10 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,756 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 22 November 2016 - 20:59

One of the interesting things about the McLaren Autosport awards was that Lewis Hamilton was deliberately excluded from them because of the potential conflict.  Fast forward a few years and Will Palmer is not excluded, despite (or because of?) his dad owning half of Britain's circuits.

 

But this is a comparatively tame conflict compared to the grotesque one that media access to F1 is controlled by a commercial organization that can bar journalists for reporting things like e.g. Kaltenborn facing the hoosegow for breaching a court order or Manor being deliberately cut out of television coverage.

 

O tempora, o mores.



#11 Kristian

Kristian
  • Member

  • 4,365 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 24 November 2016 - 11:48

I guess its similar to Coulthard being on the BBC presenting team whilst also having a very close relationship to Red Bull - everytime he was 'pro' them it was commented on here and everywhere that there is a bias there. 

 

It will be the same in this instance, even if nothing changes. 



#12 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 24,534 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 24 November 2016 - 11:52

That is a good comparison, Kristian. And fwiw, I also never liked it for this exact reason. It was never hidden as such but it sure wasn't made clear to viewers either that when he spoke about Red Bull, he was also their employee.



#13 midgrid

midgrid
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,132 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 24 November 2016 - 23:11

Amusingly enough, Autosport's cover headline this week reads: "McLaren-Honda will win again". :D



#14 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,756 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 25 November 2016 - 06:03

It took till page 16 of this week's Autosport to find something that wasn't McLaren Is Brilliant Really.  And the ousting of Dennis was shoved to a paragraph at the end of a different article.



#15 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 5,775 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 25 November 2016 - 07:08

This kind of thing happens all the time.

 

There are boards and shareholders for these companies and who knows who is a member of those, possibly people who wouldn benefit from some space in a magazine or a show put on by Hayshet exhibitions.

 

Publishing is a scratch botyh backs type of operations anyway, so this sort of thing goes on all the time, and has done for decades, it's naieve to think it doesn't.

 

But it is slightly odd that the bloke who now seems to own most of the motorsport media also runs and part owns an F1 team. And a manufacturer.

 

I don't like big money people coming in and buying juts about everything, reminds me of SKY, and look what they have done, everything is paid for, nothing is free. So imagine your NEC tickets going up astromically, your subs for magazines going up, motorsport.com probably being behind a paywall once they start getting massive daily click figures.

 

It's a slippery slope



#16 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 24,534 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 25 November 2016 - 10:52

It took till page 16 of this week's Autosport to find something that wasn't McLaren Is Brilliant Really.  And the ousting of Dennis was shoved to a paragraph at the end of a different article.

 

Because I hadn't read my copy yet and based on your previous post, I honestly assumed this was sarcasm but Jesus Christ, it really is the case. Umpteen pages of how Macca will soon be triumphantly marching up to the podium and the ousting of Ron Dennis shoved into the end of the story about Brown, almost as an afterthought.