43 replies to this topic

[tifoso]

From http://www.f1i.com:

Publisher Tom Rubython has questioned Ron Dennis's personal values in a scathing attack in this month's F1 Magazine, which has yet to hit the shelves.

In his column, entitled: "Values, integrity and the man from McLaren," Rubython launched an aggressive and personal assault on Dennis. He recounted stories related to him and suggested that the team principal's personal values left a great deal to be desired.

...

Rubython recounted a story allegedly related by Jack Brabham, who had Dennis as his chief mechanic in the 1970 British Grand Prix at Brands Hatch. It suggested that Dennis had used the wrong settings on the fuel injectors, causing Brabham to run out of fuel on the final lap and costing him a potential race win. Rather than own up to his mistake, Dennis reportedly vaulted into Parc Ferme with tools in hand to alter the settings, but was stopped by Brabham himself so he was unable to conceal his error.

The publisher also used comments made by Dennis about the defection of Minardi technical director Gustav Brunner to Toyota against him. The column stated: "Ron had said in a press conference a few weeks before, when Minardi's designer broke his contract and defected to Toyota. It reads: 'It does not matter how big a company is, or whether it's an employer or employee. When you enter into a contract agreement, or an agreement that is effectively a contract, they should honour it unless the parties agree to end it or change. Those are the only circumstances in which it is correct.'

"So here is Ron implicitly saying that what he did with Adrian Newey, by inducing him to break a signed agreement with Jaguar, was wrong; in effect admitting his 'values' were not so hot."

Rubython concluded by stating: "Sometimes the truth and he [Dennis] are complete strangers".

Can't wait to get my copy. Should make for some pretty interesting reading.;)

[614david]

That may well get them sued for slander, if it cannot be proved to be the truth. It is always better, in that case, to keep your opinions to yourself, when writing for an international magazine!
Ron ain't gonna be happy!

[caraciola]

Sounds good to me, and not at all surprising. RD is not on my list of favourite people. It always annoys the hell out of me the way he simply can't comprehend that someone's beating him and his mighty empire without cheating. (remember all the accusations early this year?) In the arrogance race he leaves MS miles behind.

[tifoso]

muppet, the article on F1i.com did say that McLaren and Jaguar were unhappy with F1 Magazine because of their reporting on the Newey situation. McLaren was also pissed about a couple of other things:

McLaren and Jaguar Racing issued a joint statement expressing complete disappointment with the magazine's reportage. Jaguar Racing even went so far as to say that Niki Lauda did not approve statements attributed to him regarding the magazine's version of events being the true version in his column in the magazine. McLaren also stated that this was the latest in a long line of problems with the magazine, which printed pictures of Mika Hakkinen's appalling accident in Adelaide in 1995, which the team felt were distasteful, and also a picture of Ilmor co-founder Paul Morgan's fatal plane crash.

[pRy]

I have to agree to being suprised when I saw the picture of Paul Morgans plane crash in their magazine. I had not seen that photo anywhere else, on the internet, or in the British press. The Hakkinen photos I had seen before.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I felt the Hakkinen photo was a bit distatesful, they had 2 photos, a main one and a littler one, the main one was of Mika being taken out of the car with his face bleeding, the smaller one (if memory serves) was of his car entering the turn with its tire flat

I think it would have been better to reverse it

[AgRacer]

I mean, technical articles on gearboxes and carbon-firbre chassis by John Barnard + Piola's tech drawings +

where can I find this magazine in the US? Does anyone know if Borders or Barnes and Noble carry it? Or is there a web site..thanks

[biercemountain]

My wife picked me up an issue at Borders for Fathers Day.
Best present I ever got.

[baddog]

hakkinen did not die, and photos of his crash are NOT distasteful. Crashes in f1 are shown again and again, even fatal ones sometimes. Rons personal love for mika (I mean that in a complimentary way) means he finds it distressing.. but that is a personal issue for him.

Shaun

[Ross Stonefeld]

My problem isnt that its an accident photo, but the blood. This isnt The Sun afterall. Its just unneccessary

[arcwulf7]

The f1 press has always taken great delight in attacking Ron Dennis because he's such an easy target. I remember when Sports Illustrated did a quite funny piece on Michael Andretti's foray into f1 racing, characterising it as a typical corn fed, smiling, mid west American tourist ambushed by the cruel realities of Formula 1. Ron had invited SI to do the story, and when it came out a biting satire he threatened to 'get back at them'. I can only assume Tom Rubython is hoping to get a similar threat and all the loads of free publicity that comes with it. And the only culprit I can see in the Newey deal is Adrian Newey himself, although if I were RD, and looking at the McLaren's performance this year, i'd have just let him walk. AND dredging up 1970, Jack Brabham, error in fuel injector settings --- come on!!

[bira]

A few thoughts and comments about this rather-amusing-to-follow affair, not in order of improtance.

1) Baddog - the "disturbing" Adelaide 95 picture was not that of the crashed car, but rather an extreme close-up of an injured, unconscious Mika Hakkinen, being carried away by the medics. Under any journalistic test you'd put it, publishing it was an act of tabloid, yellow journalism. Allthemore when they were published without Hakkinen's approval - they were, to a large extent, an invasion of his privacy. That he lived doesn't make it any less distasteful, it just makes it more unethical; because he was there to be asked about it, but was not.

2) I like the F1 Magazine. I was at awe by the quality of print, the amazing graphics design, the collage of writers and topics they collected. In the standards set forth by Haymarket magazines (Autosport, F1 Racing), F1 Magazine is a masterpiece.

Nevertheless, it's a magazine owned and operated by the F1 Boss, the landlord I would say. That puts it in a very interesting, and rather conflicting position.

On the one hand, there's no doubt the writers and editors of the magazine are privy to more information and better accessibility than any other journalist or publication. The readers are only to benefit from this.

On the other hand, those working in this magazine cut their paycheck from Formula One itself. What does that make Joe Saward? A freelance journalist or an F1 press officer? What would you think of a daily newspaper that was owned by the government? Pravda rings a bell?

Seemingly, F1 is an entertainment business. It's not a federal organisation that has direct effect on our life. Who cares, you would think, if a magazine is free to criticise the sport or not, as long as there are really good (and exclusive) interviews, pictures and technical drawings every month.

But it looks like this conflict is also at the core of the bitterness Ron Dennis has been flaming over the past month. Notice what Dennis said at the Nurburgring about the magazine:

"I am bitterly disappointed with the reporting," Dennis told journalists in the Nurburgring paddock. "There are many things that are absolutely not true and there was tremendous exaggeration on a number of issues. What I would say is, I've said it to Bernie, I've said it to the publisher, that the pitch of the magazine, in my opinion, is designed to be, and positioned to be, a magazine that positively reflected on Formula One.

"I am not against the media and I am not against freedom of speech, but both myself and several team owners over several issues, the reportage of a range of accidents in the magazine that preceded the Melbourne race, the reportage of Paul Morgan's tragic death, and the reportage of this issue is in my opinion tasteless, often inaccurate, and not a positive reflection on Formula One. There's ways to say things and there's ways to tell the truth, and in my opinion their way is the wrong way."

That is the core of the problem. McLaren have an official magazine called "Racing Line". It's actually a really nice magazine, but it's primarily a PR magazine for McLaren, and that shows. Dennis would like to see the official magazine for F1 be the same - a PR magazine for F1. Those who produce it seem to have a different agenda. More power to them, I say.


3) I have not read the full column by Mr. Rubython. To the best of my knowledge, that specific issue is due to be released tomorrow (Thursday), however F1i.com are somehow tied to this magazine (I can tell you an odd story about that, but I'd digress) and so have had a preview story to tell exclusively.

From that story alone, I couldn't help wondering how utterly unprofessional, malicious and unproductive that column seems.

What does that story about Jack Brabham have to do with Dennis's criticism on the magazine? What does the comments he made about Brunner have to do with anything at all?

If F1 Magazine thinks that Ron Dennis's comments were wrongful and damaging, they have means to require him to apologise or make ammends for it. But Ron Dennis criticised - even if wrongfully - a magazine. Tom Rubython, on the other hand, is personally attacking and villifying a person, Ron Dennis. To that end, he is abusing the "power of the press" given to him by his readers.

If that's not shady, yellow, unethical journalism then I don't know what is. Frankly, as much as I dislike Ron Dennis, in this story alone my vote goes out in his favour.

[taran]

Bira, I'm not sure you're right with the following :"the "disturbing" Adelaide 95 picture was not that of the crashed car, but rather an extreme close-up of an injured, unconscious Mika Hakkinen, being carried away by the medics. Under any journalistic test you'd put it, publishing it was an act of tabloid, yellow journalism. Allthemore when they were published without Hakkinen's approval - they were, to a large extent, an invasion of his privacy. That he lived doesn't make it any less distasteful, it just makes it more unethical; because he was there to be asked about it, but was not. "


Mika Hakkinen is a F1 driver, performing his job for the benefit of fans, media and anyone willing to watch a grown man go round in circles (or crash trying to). As such, the concept of privacy is different than for "Joe Average" who's picture might be taken.

Like it or not, drivers are public figures and anything they do or that happens to them on the track is in the public domain.

It might be distasteful to see a Senna dying to you and me but perhaps some fans might wish to see it, to "be" with their idol in his last moments. Is that distasteful? Not to them!
In the case of Dale Earnhardt, his family asked for the pictures to be surpressed even though that was not legally possible. It was done out of respect AND because possible publishers feared a backlash from enraged (a.k.a. disgruntled) fans.

Many casual fans watch racing because it is dangerous. It is part of the attraction of F1. If drivers are not willing to accept it (even subconsiously) they can take up golf.

So there was no need to get Hakkinen's permission to show those pictures, just as there is no need to get his permission to show his McLaren on pole position. Taking pictures of his private life (for instance his son taking a bath) is a different issue as that has nothing to do with his job as a driver.

[312 PB]

ron dennis cannot expect
journalists to be pr machines
which is why he pioneered two-story motorhome

journalists attacking leading players
should be very circumspect
allowing readers the opportunity to interpret
and 'read between the lines'

there are no winners only whingers
when attacks become personal

as in this bb ofttimes

[bira]

taran I disagree with you.

The issue of publicity goes hand in hand with "the people's right to know."

How is that right served by plastering that picture, spread enlarged on two glossy magazine pages? That wasn't a journalistic call, serving "the people's right to know".

Mika Hakkinen is a public figure and I am not saying his accident or his injuries should be hidden. What I am telling you is that a decent publication would have not used such pictures as though they were centerfold images, and would not have done it without talking to that person. If his eye was popping out of his eyeball and there was a closeup of that, it would still be 'fair game' to you, within the 'public domain'? If his injuries were around his groin and the images portraited his bare behind, would that still be 'fair game' to you, within the 'public domain'? Where does his privacy being?

Ask the editor of the New York Times and he'll tell you Hakkinen's privacy begins at the first close-up image of a person's injury, no matter who he/she is. Unless there is real journalistic justification to show these images, you do not show them. And even then, you don't do it as a centerfold image.

Ask the editor of the Sun and he'll tell you Hakkinen's privacy begins at the first sign of buyers refusing to purchase that newspaper...

[Captain Cook]

Originally posted by bira

Ask the editor of the Sun and he'll tell you Hakkinen's privacy begins at the first sign of buyers refusing to purchase that newspaper...

I think Bira is absolutely correct. Pushing the laws governing media to the limit, on the grounds that these people court the press in the first place, holds no water. Journalists have a massive responsibility to the public. All doctors take the Hippocratic oath, some journalists just take their pay check.

Then again that isn't journalism its just a PR magazine.

The Sun.

[Melbourne Park]

Three weeks ago I took my wife and children to China on a holiday. I took my business wheeled carry on with my notebook computer, my satchel wallet with passports, tickets and credit cards, and the fresh copy of the Australian version of F1 magazine.

Guess what? My darling wife saw the bright pictures of the magazine cover, and she put it in the rubbish bin. That's right, she put the magazine in the rubbish bin...

I did not see an English copy in China (although the Grand Prix coverage was better than in Australia...). Now that version is out of print.

The worst thing is, when Jack Brabham ran out of fuel, he lost the world championsip .... that's a big mistake for Ron to make ... and if one read's between the lines, maybe there was more to it than a simple mistake ... why else would anybody try and change the settings back ??? That's one hell of a story ... If I see Sir Jack at the Melbourne Grand Prix signing autographs with Stirling Moss, I am going to ask him about that ... he should have 4 world championships ...

[Drinky]

Melbourne Park,

If you're going to talk to Sir Jack (lucky you ;)), please keep in mind he ran out of fuel at the British GP, which was mid-season. Jack could still have won the championship after that, but didn't score any more points. So I wouldn't say Ron lost him the championship, rather just the race.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Would a 4th world championship make Jack Brabham any more or less esteemed in your view? its just math


Regarding the Dale Earnhardt photos, i was under the impression they were made private

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Drinky
Melbourne Park,

If you're going to talk to Sir Jack (lucky you ;)), please keep in mind he ran out of fuel at the British GP, which was mid-season. Jack could still have won the championship after that, but didn't score any more points. So I wouldn't say Ron lost him the championship, rather just the race.

I don't know why you say Dinky that Jack did not score anymore points. Maybe I have my wires crossed of course, this was before my F1 fully cognisant time but 1967 was the year when Jack came second (he won in 1966), still running his own car and the engine he got Repco to develop.

The car which beat him was NZ compatriot Denny Hulme's car, which was part of Jack's own team. I suspect Jack did not have team orders that year at least, and I also suspect that fiddling with the mixtures was also not approved!!

The Forix results for 1967 are:

 1  Denny Hulme  51  3  9  4  -  6  6  9  6  -  4  4
 2  Jack Brabham  46  1  -  6  -  9  3  6  9  6  (2)  6

The British GP was the 6th race for that year. Now Jack did "finish" that race, but without fuel (if my memory of a movie or maybe a news real or something I saw years ago). He was leading, so if he had not run out of fuel he would have won. Which means Denny would have got 4 points not six; and Jack would have got 9 points not 3. The difference being 6 + 2 = 8 points, and since the margin was 5 points, Jack would have won a fourth title.

Not that I think it worried him; he could have stopped Denny winning after all, if he was a lesser man.

He would however have been very upset about getting the fuel consumption incorrect, as he was a lot more than a racing car driver...

Its amazing really, if RD had of turned the tuning back, the fuel consumption would then have been blaimed on the fuel guage or the person who filled the tank ... or there would have been a conundrum about the fuel consumption ... concidering RD's later role, that story is pretty poor. But then again, maybe he is the type of person who just panicked and tried to cover it up. But for a person of his intellect, that's still a very poor show.

Still business is tough and RD has been successfull. Perhaps the RD story is a guide to what it really takes???

[Indian Chief]

I haven't seen the photo in that issue of F1 Magazine, but it seems like the one that was published in Sid Watkins's book "Life at the Limit". It has a photo of Hakkinen with his face partially soaked in blood and being carried away by marshalls. I didn't find the photo particularly disturbing either.

[bleakuzs]

Well, isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black....

I love it when the media tries to villify the media, it only helps to discredit the reporting, sort of trying to sensationalise the story by saying "don't read those distatsteful idiots, read my stuff!"

bira, it can only help your position as a journalist by not commenting on weather another publication is distasteful or not, it will not leave the door so wide open for them to come back on a story you publish.

[bira]

Thank you for your advice bleakuzs. I have now seen the light.

[AyePirate]

It's not like F1 went into Mika's house and shot pictures
of him bonking Erja (now that's disturbing). That would
be an invasion of privacy. What F1 did was run a picture
that has run in numerous other places before of an occurance
at a public event of a public figure.Having not so nice
pictures pop up in public is the flipside to fame
and fortune. If readers don't like the picture they can turn
the page, flip the channel, don't buy the magazine or whatever.

Freedom isn't always pretty.

[taran]

Again Bira, I'll have to disagree with you.

(Damn, is disagreeing with an ATLASF1 Exalted One bad for my member status ?;) )

In a perfect world, "The issue of publicity goes hand in hand with "the people's right to know." , but in the real world which all of us habitate, publicity is ruled by what people WANT to see.

Journalistic responsibility is only governed by liability and possible backlash. Nothing else!!! Don't kid yourself.

If there is a market, someone will publish it. If someone will publish it, the other media have an "obligation" to publish it as well....


Just because YOU find it distasteful, doesn't mean it IS distasteful.
It just your opinion and as valid as anybody else's but not more so.

If the reputable media you quote feel that showing an injury related to someone's public presence is wrong, why do they show war pictures or accident pictures or crime pictures? One could argue much strongly that those people didn't sign up to have their lives shown to the world.

I work for a media conglomerate and have some insight in what can be done and what can't be. And the public (for good or not) doesn't want homogonized, blanket-covered pictures of their stars. They want raw, action pictures and as long as they want that, they'll get it.

Captain Cook, I have to inform you that your statement "Pushing the laws governing media to the limit, on the grounds that these people court the press in the first place, holds no water. Journalists have a massive responsibility to the public." is off the mark by a considerable margin.

Journalists actually have two standards when writing about people. Those who are not in the public domain (i.e. people that perform to the general public and need/court their attention) are treated differently and with more attention to their privacy. However, if it involves public figures AND involves their primary focus (i.e. politicians & their morality, drivers & what happens on the track) there is a legitimate reason/opportunity to write and that can go very far indeed.

The responsibility you mention is first to be sure of the veracity of a story. It shoud be correct and substantiated. Sports writers are not interested in the kind of investigative journalism where "responsibility to the public" means writing about injustice.

[Drinky]

Melbourne Park,

Time to check those wires ;). We are talking about the 1970 British GP, which Brabham lost to later champion Jochen Rindt by a whisker, due to the lack of fuel. I was of course referring to that season where Jack didn't score anymore points after the Brands Hatch race. The 1967 British GP was run at Silverstone and maybe he ran out of fuel there as well, but that wasn't the topic here.

[Melbourne Park]

OK, thanks Drinky

I went to Forix and looked; Rindt I think may have started his career with Brahbam, as did some other fine drivers. Curously at the time of the British GP Jack was leading the world championship I think. He ended up 5th and then retired. Not a bad effort for Jack when its your car, and your 44 years old! If MS drives that long, he'll break a few records. Some fair drivers in front of him as well: Jochen Rindt, Jacky Ickx, Clay Regazzoni, Denny Hulme and he was equal with Jackie Stewart. He even got the fastest lap, maybe the rich mixture wasn't such a bad thing after all!

[Captain Cook]

Originally posted by taran

(Damn, is disagreeing with an ATLASF1 Exalted One bad for my member status ?;) )

Journalistic responsibility is only governed by liability and possible backlash. Nothing else!!! Don't kid yourself.

Captain Cook, I have to inform you that your statement is off the mark by a considerable margin.

No it isn't remember you aren't talking to the Sun.....

War has already been mentioned in this debate. I will mention murder now in the context of the second quoted paragraph above.
I have never murdered anybody. In part because if I do I will be liable to imprisonment if I get caught (the possible backlash). However I would never consider murdering anybody as it is also morally repugnant.

Then again maybe I am just kidding myself.

A considerable margin? Let me assure you dear boy, you hardly hit the bulls eye either.

[BRG]

Actually, Black Jack had already dropped the ball that year at Monaco, when he made an unforced error at the Gasworks Hairpin and lost the race, also to Rindt. So he may have been equally to blame for his WDC miss. The issue of Brabham's 1970 last lap failures was aired recently on the Nostalgia Forum and there was no hint from anyone there of this story about Ron and the fuel mixture. Nor can remember any such story ever being circulated, from the day of the race (which I attended) until today. So I rather suspect that this is a complete fabrication.

Turning to the main issue, this has been a surprisingly intelligent thread, probably because it has been graced by Bira, so everyone has been on their best behaviour! I opened it fully expecting to find the usual moronic Ron-bashing, but no! A nice surprise.
However, I do find some inconsistency compared to the recent thread on Nigel Roebuck of Autosport magazine. Roebuck was roundly criticised for his supposed anti-Schumacher and anti-German "bias". But I see no criticism of this Rubython character (who I have to admit, I have never even heard of) for what seems to be his open dislike of Ron Dennis. I wonder why he is allowed to make persoanl attacks of this sort without earning any rebukes, whilst Roebuck is slated for merely writing "slanted" comments.

Personally, I regard F1 Mag as Bernie's propaganda paper and would not therefore read it even if it was free. I prefer to use more independent media.

[tifoso]

AgRacer, I live in the U.S. and was able to purchase the magazine over the Internet at this site: http://www.f1magazine.net/. I greatly enjoy the technical pieces and articles about F1 history.

While I've enjoyed reading the debate on the responsibilities of the press this thread has engendered, I believe readers should also take responsibilities. As long as you know the source of the money funding what you're reading and the agenda of the people with the money, you can read and enjoy whatever you like. It's one of the reasons I very rarely rely on the veracity of various polls and research studies reported by the press until I've found out who paid for it.

Ross Stonefeld, here's what I think the latest is on the Earnhardt autopsy photographs:

Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed legislation making confidential and exempt from the inspection and copying requirements of Florida’s public records law photographs, videos and audio recordings of autopsies. However, a court, upon a showing of good cause, to issue an order allowing a person to inspect or copy such records and to impose any restrictions on further dissemination that the court deems appropriate. The bill requires that the surviving spouse, parent or adult child be given notice and an opportunity to be heard at a court hearing regarding the release of autopsy records. The legislation makes it a third degree felony for those who knowingly release these confidential photographs and recordings.

[bira]

Originally posted by muppet
Is there any actual connection between Bernie and the Mag?

He owns it.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by BRG
Actually, Black Jack had already dropped the ball that year at Monaco, when he made an unforced error at the Gasworks Hairpin and lost the race, also to Rindt. So he may have been equally to blame for his WDC miss. The issue of Brabham's 1970 last lap failures was aired recently on the Nostalgia Forum and there was no hint from anyone there of this story about Ron and the fuel mixture. Nor can remember any such story ever being circulated, from the day of the race (which I attended) until today. So I rather suspect that this is a complete fabrication.

Turning to the main issue, this has been a surprisingly intelligent thread, probably because it has been graced by Bira, so everyone has been on their best behaviour! I opened it fully expecting to find the usual moronic Ron-bashing, but no! A nice surprise.
However, I do find some inconsistency compared to the recent thread on Nigel Roebuck of Autosport magazine. Roebuck was roundly criticised for his supposed anti-Schumacher and anti-German "bias". But I see no criticism of this Rubython character (who I have to admit, I have never even heard of) for what seems to be his open dislike of Ron Dennis. I wonder why he is allowed to make persoanl attacks of this sort without earning any rebukes, whilst Roebuck is slated for merely writing "slanted" comments.

.....

BRG thanks for the nostalgia reference, I guess I should read that stuff. I can't really look down at Jack for those ball drops, at 44 years!!

As to people not criticising Rubython for open dislike, compared to Roebuck, the point with Roebuck is he does it just about all the time so its seems ... and he's certainly real as well...

[Garagiste]

I'm another that doesn't like the idea of it being Bernie's own rag, (though I'm sure I would read it if it were free! )

It might be independent of the teams , Muppet, can can you imagine it publishing an article saying that (for example) BE's digital TV feed is rubbish / expensive / discracefully not available in the UK?

Rubython is probably escaping the bashing (eeeyuk, I hate that word, but used so much here I couldn't avoid it) that he probably (not read it) deserves for a few reasons:

1. It's the first we have heard of him, so it's not like "oh he's off again"

2. To quote Alan Jones "Nobody likes Ron Dennis". Those that know him probably like him a great deal, but if not, well there's much to admire, perhaps, or respect, but like?
In the same department as Jean Todt there, I fear.

As for the photos of MH, tough call but smacks a little of the gutter for my taste.

[taran]

I'm sorry Captain Cook but you've lost me here. I have no idea what your point is about murder?


My comment was about Journalistic responsibility.

It is defined by most journalists (at least those not in investigative journalism) to mean an accurate story that can be substantiated.
Thereby preventing liability claims by people unhappy with the content. And angry editors-in-chief that have to pay expensive lawsuits.

As to "morally repugnant", that's an issue of social choice as society at large determines what is acceptable and what is not.
Some people felt that printing pictures of Princess Diana's crashed Mercedes was "morally repugnant". Many more bought magazines/newspapers showing those pictures.

Now simply classifying what the great unwashed masses prefere as the social norm might seem silly but in the end it does boil down to that.

To get back to the original point, You might find those pictures of Hakkinen repugnant but you'd be in a minority, and legally without any ground to stand on!

And it was your remark that "Pushing the laws governing media to the limit, on the grounds that these people court the press in the first place, holds no water" that is way off the mark, because that is exactly what happens. It is the flip side of being famous.

I hope this clarifies my remarks for you, because I can't make them any clearer.

[Ross Stonefeld]

What it comes down to, is was it neccessary? Sure the magazine has every right to show the photo, but do they need to, and should they in the manner that they did? Really the problem isnt the photo, but how they used it

[Captain Cook]

Originally posted by taran
I'm sorry Captain Cook but you've lost me here. I have no idea what your point is about murder?

My comment was about Journalistic responsibility.

I hope this clarifies my remarks for you, because I can't make them any clearer.

Confusion abounds!!

you = me?

Did I give the impression I didn't understand you? Silly me.

You probably missed my point as it was so basic!

[bleakuzs]

Originally posted by bira
Thank you for your advice bleakuzs. I have now seen the light.

I'll take that with a rather large helping of salt, but as what appened to me on another BB, I thought I was immune form outside criticism, and lo and behold I was quoted in a magazine, and it wasn't a good thing

[Melbourne Park]

Bernie may own the magazine, but so what. I doubt he set it up so that he can have false goes at people like Ron Dennis.

Maybe untouchable people can can be run at by F1 magaqzine, because since its Ron's they have to put up with it!!

Being owned by Ron, it may not have to run at a profit either, as the publicity / marketing benefits to F1 may contribut something to the magazines cost. Anyway I doubt Bernie financing it to make a fortune!

[skylark68]

I don't think you get to the top of an F1 team by being a nice guy. Basically, most of the top guys on F1 teams are weirdos.

They are all cheerleaders for their team and are probably jealous of the skills of the drivers. I think a lot of these guys are very jealous of drivers and so say stuff to belittle them.

I was watching Jean Todt who was beaming when MS was on the podium and I was struck by a thought - I pictured Todt saying to himself, "I can bring him down just as fast as I brought him up."

In fact, the whole of F1 is run by weirdos. I mean, have you ever seen the head of hair on Bernie? And he's worth billions? Why doesn't he just pay for a good rug, instead of that mop he calls hair. Luigi gives better bowl cuts than this guy gets, and I bet he pays his stylist a bundle.

As for his mag, he is surely the ultimate insider so it had better be good. I think teams are spooked that his organ will tell a lot of tale - I find it odd that only 2 teams are saying anything about it - perhaps the others are afraid to criticize, less secrets be exposed? Who the hell knows.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by skylark68

I was watching Jean Todt who was beaming when MS was on the podium and I was struck by a thought - I pictured Todt saying to himself, "I can bring him down just as fast as I brought him up."

Off all the people likely to bring someone down, I'd say Jean Todt has the least likely resume.

He was a rally co - driver, which to me sounds like a person who does everything he can to help a driver, not bring him down. Geeh a rally co-driver wouldn't be likely to bring his driver down, eh?

Todt's ex driver is one of the chiefs at Toyota F1 now ...

[skylark68]

I actually like Todt, but it is a reflection of my state-of-mind when during a national anthem, I can only think of something negative to think about the victor. I think.

[Chris G.]

So many of todays "news" pubilcations incorporate elements of sensationalism.
And, while I don't like it, it is almost required to survive.

The success of this magazine will NOT be measured by how many journalists
feel the line was crossed with the Mika picture. Their success will be measured
by their sales and growth. While they may print a letter to the editor decrying
the photo, they certainly won't stop if they feel it helps sales. Right or wrong,
the publication is run by money, not the "journalistic ethics" others feel should
be present.

[Captain Cook]

Originally posted by Chris G.
Right or wrong,
the publication is run by money, not the "journalistic ethics" others feel should
be present.

It is a constant trade-off. The black and white argument outlined above is a little overly simplistic, don't you think?

[Chris G.]

Originally posted by Captain Cook


It is a constant trade-off. The black and white argument outlined above is a little overly simplistic, don't you think?

Yes, there is overlap and presented as such, it is a simplistic analysis.

However, given the choice between making money at the expense of journalists decrying the ethics OR not making money and pleasing as many ethical journalists as possible - they will go for the money.