41 replies to this topic

[michaelab]

Hmm...this doesn't bode well IMO:

At the bottom of the AtlasF1 news article Davidson Lined Up for Villeneuve's Drive there's a little postscript that says:

"For more details and comments, pick up a copy of this week's Autosport magazine"

That to me looks a lot like "For more details and other stuff you would have got for free on AtlasF1 before the merger, go out and pay £3.80 (or whatever it is) to read that comic that was once a respectable motorsport magazine"

If there's one thing I really hate is subscription (ie, you've had to pay for it) internet versions of magazines/newspapers baiting you like that to try and get you to buy the print version aswell. I am not a happy bunny at all

Michael.

[david_martin]

I came here to remark on exactly the same thing. Apart from the fact I couldn't buy Autosport where I live, even if I wanted to, I don't expect to see advertising for Haymarket's print publications on "Atlas" content and I certainly don't expect it to be an inducement to read more of the story I pay $48 a year to read in its entirety here.

[Cosmograph]

Perhaps this points to a forthcoming "Plus-Plus" subscription whereby we'll have to pay more for the full articles. In other words free readers get a snippet, internet subscribers get a little more, but you have to buy the mag or an enhanced subscription to get even more.

Mind you, the "news" service is hardly that exclusive. You can easily read alot of the Reuters sourced articles elsewhere.

What's really of value in AtlasF1 (vs. Autosport) is the post race analysis and the technical articles. Autosport magazine is pretty good but also very expensive in North America.

[bira]

If you look at reports that are based on Autosport magazine exclusives from BEFORE the merger was even dreamt of, you will see we have not changed our method or reporting at all. See this report as an example.

So the only thing that changed is that we added a promotion line to the magazine? How is that a sin? It hasn't impaired the story itself - we never would have copied an ENTIRE article anyway. We gave you the 'news' of it. So there's the story on the one hand - which is EXACTLY the same as we would have done it without the Autosport partnership; and on the other hand a single promotional line at the bottom.

And let's not forget that because of our new partnership, we get this information before anyone else - including Autosport Magazine's subscribers, in fact. So it's a simple trade-off, and as our reader you also gain from this.

I fail to see how you are being mislead here at all.

[bira]

Originally posted by michaelab
...other stuff you would have got for free on AtlasF1 before the merger...

Show me a SINGLE example where we posted a full EXCLUSIVE article from Autosport? Good god, we'd be sued if we did.

Michael, think about what you are saying...

[Allen Brown]

Bira, I don't know how you keep your patience with this sort of cr*p.

[michaelab]

Fair enough bira, you're right. When I first skimmed the article I somehow missed that it was based on an Autosport interview .

It does still greatly irritate me to see the Autosport magazine promotion at the bottom of the article. I'd go so far as to say that I'd rather not have "Autosport exclusive" based news stories on Atlas F1 if they have to be accompanied by a promotional tagline for the magazine. I can read them elsewhere without the promotion and in any case, it should be obvious to anyone interested that a fuller story may well be available in the print magazine.

Michael.

[scdecade]

Originally posted by michaelab
Fair enough bira, you're right. When I first skimmed the article I somehow missed that it was based on an Autosport interview .

The thing that concerns me is not that Atlas is basing articles on exclusive information offered on 'other' sites but that the article in question really belongs in the Grapevine and not in the News Service. This is being commented on in one of the JV threads but I thought I'd post it here because it really rubs me the wrong way. No sources are given, no particular author is accredited, and the (seemingly) direct quotes from the main players involved (Peter Sauber, Nick Frye) deny the validity of the assertions being made. This is pretty shabby and not up to the journalistic quality that AtlasF1 has demonstrated in the past. I hope this isn't representative of what we can expect in the future.

[Anders Torp]

Originally posted by bira
I fail to see how you are being mislead here at all.

Have mercy, Bira: Some poor souls manage to get mislead all by themselves.

[bira]

Originally posted by scdecade


The thing that concerns me is not that Atlas is basing articles on exclusive information offered on 'other' sites but that the article in question really belongs in the Grapevine and not in the News Service. This is being commented on in one of the JV threads but I thought I'd post it here because it really rubs me the wrong way. No sources are given, no particular author is accredited, and the (seemingly) direct quotes from the main players involved (Peter Sauber, Nick Frye) deny the validity of the assertions being made. This is pretty shabby and not up to the journalistic quality that AtlasF1 has demonstrated in the past. I hope this isn't representative of what we can expect in the future.

I'll break this down into points:

1) author: My bad. The magazine story has an author, of course - it is credited to Anthony Rowlinson. We should have put that but for whatever reason, when we ran the story, my mind was elsewhere (on a launch that should have happened any minute now )

On the topic of author, I agree with you that knowing it's Rowlinson adds much credibility to the report, as there are few more connected and knowledgable as him.

2) Grapevine: there seems to be a lack of understanding on what the Grapevine is or should be, and now would be as good a time as any to try and clarify it. And this story is a good example, actually.

The Grapevine is a place for what I consider "fluff" (Michael Buys a Poodle), or rumours, or speculative information. Focusing on the 'rumours and speculations' part of it, we have always maintained that information we as publishers cannot verify and/or validate - i.e. we cannot in good faith say "we personally know this to be true" - should not be in the news.

However, when we know something to be a fact - even if an official denies it (his prerogative) or even if the source is anonymous (again, his prerogative) - if we feel we can fully stand behind an asertion as being factual, then it's no longer a speculation and certainly not a rumour.

Let this be clear: we are saying very plainly and without hesitation that Sauber approached Anothy Davidson to discuss the possibility of him replacing Villeneuve this season. We are stating this as what we consider 100% validated and verifiable.

Whether this will happen or not remains to be seen. The story never claims that it WILL happen. The story only states a single clear matter: Davidson was approach. That DID happen. That we cannot quote Peter Sauber stating "yes, I have begun talks with Anthony" or anything similar to that is hardly surprising, but from our standpoint it doesn't diminish one bit what we know and based on where we know it from.

One thing you gotta give Autosport - especially Anthony Rowlinson and Jonathan Noble - they're amazing scoopers. They work hard and deliver exclusives one after another, and I say this with a lot of happiness: it is absolutely great for us to be able to benefit from their work.

Now, if "The Bild" would have reported exclusively this story, and we had no way to verify it or first-hand knowledge that it was true, we'd have put it in the Grapevine and regarded it as a rumour. But this is not the case here.

We will continue to maintain high standards in the News. And we will continue to publish stories we stand behind [u]in the news[/i]. If we cannot stand behind the story, we will put it in the Grapevine.

Does it mean taking more risks? Yes. Does it mean possibly getting beat by you guys more often? Possibly. But the test is one of time: only through time can you evaluate whether we remain reliable or not.

3) The denial quotes. Even considering that on-the-record denials should be taken with a slight hesitation, especially on topics like these; even considering that Peter Sauber has denied on the record switching to Michelin shortly before he did so; even considering Sauber denied signing Villeneuve only days before announcing it; even considering all of that - it is worth noting that there isn't a single quote denying that Sauber approached Davidson. Take that and make of it what you will...

[JForce]

I find this kind of thing very unfortunate. I pay for AtlasF1 (now Autosport-Atlas), and expect to get entire articles. I don't pay for a preview service for a magazine that I can't get. If there is more to the article, I expect Atlas to make it available to me, rather than holding stuff back to print in the magazine.

I'm quite disappointed by this move.

[Rene]

Originally posted by Anders Torp

Have mercy, Bira: Some poor souls manage to get mislead all by themselves.

Are you just here to stir **** up???

[bira]

OK, on second thought I've split the posts from the other thread into this one. JForce, there is one huge glaring miscomprehension in your post.

You assume that this article is 'ours' and that we decided to keep some of it to ourselves (or to a different product). That article is not ours, no more than "The Piranha Club" - written by one of our regular contributrs - was our book. When we had exclusively published the first chapter from "The Piranha Club", just before it was published, you didn't complain that your subscription ought to give you that book in full and for free, did you?

We ran a NEWS story. Autosport Magazine has an exclusive story, and it is part of a lengthy feature in their weekly magazine, which comes out tomorrow.

There is a trade-off in that they let us have this story well before every Tom, Dick and Harry with a website can quote Autosport (as Atlas F1 did too and still does when other publications have an exclusive - for example, Gazzetta Dello Sport, Der Spiegel or Autosport magazine). What they want to get out of "ruining" their scoop is exposure and promotion. We've done it many times ourselves, by running a news story that is based on a part of a lengthy interview or article that appears in the weekly issue. Difference is, of course, we have been promoting ourselves there whereas here, as you say, we are promoting a sister publication.

But, as I already stated earlier, I completely fail to see the sin in that, nor the lack of ethics. There is NOTHING different in how we wrote that story from EVERY SINGLE TIME before that we quoted another publication. We take the news-worthy elements, and we provide a FULL REPORT, without copying the FULL ARTICLE. The distinction must be made.


I think there is an element of confusion because this story doesn't appear full by its own nature. Effectively, you have a story saying Davidson was approached. By whom? When? What were the details of the offer? All these are unknown, and reading the report - with that line at the bottom - gives the impression that perhaps these details appear in the magazine and are deliberately hidden by us.

That is not the case, but I do certainly draw conclusions from this as far as how we word any form of promotion in the future.

In any event, I categorically emphasize that there was nothing in how this story was handled that differs from other similar examples, and there is nothing missing in this story that I would consider substantial to the news element of it.

[JForce]

I guess my issue with the "Buy Autosport for the whole article" thing is that before the merger I would have expected Atlas to publish an entire article if they got hold of it. It's a website, that's what they do. I understand that this is content that previously you wouldn't have had access to, but now that the merger has happened, you DO have access to it. So as an Atlas subscriber I would expect an entire story that you had access to to be published. I guess you are now also in the business of publishing a print magazine.

[bira]

Sorry, forgot to open the thread while I was editing my post

[bira]

Originally posted by JForce
I guess my issue with the "Buy Autosport for the whole article" thing is that before the merger I would have expected Atlas to publish an entire article if they got hold of it. It's a website, that's what they do. I understand that this is content that previously you wouldn't have had access to, but now that the merger has happened, you DO have access to it. So as an Atlas subscriber I would expect an entire story that you had access to to be published. I guess you are now also in the business of publishing a print magazine.

JForce, Atlas F1 has merged with Autosport.com and NOT with Autosport Magazine. Do NOT confuse the two. Autosport Magazine has its own staff, its own editor in chief, its own budget, etc. Autosport-Atlas has its own staff, its own editor in chief, its own budget, etc. We are sister publications, owned by the same company obviously, but we are NOT one entity. Haymarket also owns two dozen other websites and a gazzilion other magazines. We operate in a friendly environment with one another, but it's 'each to his own' where it comes to production and publication.

I really honestly don't understand why you'd think we have the right or entitlement to publish an entire article from Autosport Magazine. Why should Haymarket even bother publishing Autosport Magazine if everyone else can just take - A DAY BEFORE AUTOSPORT PUBLISHES - the Autosport content and publish it elsewhere?

This story is exclusive to Autosport Magazine. It's not like we had it too, but gave it up or something. It's Anthony Rowlinson's scoop - and the one advantage we got by being sisters, is the fact that we can read it, and report about it, earlier than anyone else, give us an advantage in the market we operate on - the Internet.

As someone stated before, it's not like other websites are not going to quote from the Autosport Magazine article, giving credit to it, today or tomorrow. So it really just remains a question of who breaks it first. We get the PRIVILEGE of breaking this story first - our readers get to hear about it before ANYONE else, including the Autosport Magazine subscribers. And in return for that privilege, we give them a single line of promotion? Wow. What a price to pay

[JForce]

I didn't know they were 2 seperate things, and was under the impression that they were more closely linked than perhaps they are. Still, I hope you can understand that it gives the impression of "Here's a teaser but for the full story buy the magazine", which is what I always found Autosport to be.

[stylus]

Originally posted by bira
I think there is an element of confusion because this story doesn't appear full by its own nature. Effectively, you have a story saying Davidson was approached. By whom? When? What were the details of the offer? All these are unknown, and reading the report - with that line at the bottom - gives the impression that perhaps these details appear in the magazine and are deliberately hidden by us.

That is not the case, but I do certainly draw conclusions from this as far as how we word any form of promotion in the future.

I read the article after reading this thread and - while I take your point on the rest - the line at the bottom does gives the article an incomplete feeling: here's the intro, buy the magazine for the whole story.

Actually, until you clarified it before/here, I was also confused as to how much autosport (print) and autosport-atlas.com overlapped, if at all. That may be going around.

(Unrelated - more or less - when will the subscription service come back up? Oh. new site.)

[JForce]

I guess Im quite defensive about the whole thing for some reason. I've always viewed Autosport as the big bad enemy who have all the money yet do a crapper job than Atlas, and I'm suspicious of ANY change that happens. My apologies.

[Anders Torp]

Originally posted by Rene

Are you just here to stir **** up???

Me!? Good heavens, no! It's just that some managed to get lost without being mislead. Wouldn't happen to you, of course!

[scdecade]

Originally posted by bira


I'll break this down into points:

1) author: My bad. The magazine story has an author, of course - it is credited to Anthony Rowlinson. We should have put that but for whatever reason, when we ran the story, my mind was elsewhere (on a launch that should have happened any minute now )

On the topic of author, I agree with you that knowing it's Rowlinson adds much credibility to the report, as there are few more connected and knowledgable as him.

2) Grapevine: there seems to be a lack of understanding on what the Grapevine is or should be, and now would be as good a time as any to try and clarify it. And this story is a good example, actually.

The Grapevine is a place for what I consider "fluff" (Michael Buys a Poodle), or rumours, or speculative information. Focusing on the 'rumours and speculations' part of it, we have always maintained that information we as publishers cannot verify and/or validate - i.e. we cannot in good faith say "we personally know this to be true" - should not be in the news.

However, when we know something to be a fact - even if an official denies it (his prerogative) or even if the source is anonymous (again, his prerogative) - if we feel we can fully stand behind an asertion as being factual, then it's no longer a speculation and certainly not a rumour.

Let this be clear: we are saying very plainly and without hesitation that Sauber approached Anothy Davidson to discuss the possibility of him replacing Villeneuve this season. We are stating this as what we consider 100% validated and verifiable.

Whether this will happen or not remains to be seen. The story never claims that it WILL happen. The story only states a single clear matter: Davidson was approach. That DID happen. That we cannot quote Peter Sauber stating "yes, I have begun talks with Anthony" or anything similar to that is hardly surprising, but from our standpoint it doesn't diminish one bit what we know and based on where we know it from.

One thing you gotta give Autosport - especially Anthony Rowlinson and Jonathan Noble - they're amazing scoopers. They work hard and deliver exclusives one after another, and I say this with a lot of happiness: it is absolutely great for us to be able to benefit from their work.

Now, if "The Bild" would have reported exclusively this story, and we had no way to verify it or first-hand knowledge that it was true, we'd have put it in the Grapevine and regarded it as a rumour. But this is not the case here.

We will continue to maintain high standards in the News. And we will continue to publish stories we stand behind [u]in the news[/i]. If we cannot stand behind the story, we will put it in the Grapevine.

Does it mean taking more risks? Yes. Does it mean possibly getting beat by you guys more often? Possibly. But the test is one of time: only through time can you evaluate whether we remain reliable or not.

3) The denial quotes. Even considering that on-the-record denials should be taken with a slight hesitation, especially on topics like these; even considering that Peter Sauber has denied on the record switching to Michelin shortly before he did so; even considering Sauber denied signing Villeneuve only days before announcing it; even considering all of that - it is worth noting that there isn't a single quote denying that Sauber approached Davidson. Take that and make of it what you will...

Thanks for the reply Bira. Nice sparring with you.

My reply is also broken down by points.

1) Ok, it was Anthony Rowlinson.

2) I'm aware of the distinction between the Grapevine and the News Section and that is what prompted my comment. The article states "Sauber have begun talks with BAR test driver Anthony Davidson as a possible replacement for Jacques Villeneuve." It seems carefully worded to make matter out of very little. Given that the events that surrounded Ant's possible test for Williams are well know, i.e. that BAR disallowed it, why would Sauber directly approaching Anthony Davidson constitute the beginning of "talks" (implying contract talks)? If the article were accurately representing a real situation wouldn't it state "Sauber have begun talks with BAR regarding...?" Does this word smithing mean, as seems likely, that Sauber perhaps made a casual inquiry as to the nature of Ant's contractual situation? If so that hardly qualifies the blaring headline, "Davidson in Line for Villeneuve's Seat." All this based on an inquiry through a channel that's incidental to any eventual deal. Of course, this is precisely the kind of junk journalism that Autosport has been pumping out for forever.

3) Again, you state that Sauber doesn't deny approaching Davidson. Approaching Davidson directly and creating the contractual situation necessary to put Ant in line for JV's seat are two different things. The article implies the latter. Also, Nick Frye's quote about being unaware of Sauber's interest may very well be true. If Sauber approached Davidson then it's possible that Frye is/was completely unaware. The article as written seems to require that Nick Frye is just telling lies. Also, I don't recall Sauber ever denying that he'd signed JV or that he signed for Michellin. Couldn't find it via google and the Atlas Archive is not currently available...

I realize that I'm reading a lot into the article but I'm fairly attuned to persuasive writing designed to imply the sensational. This article seems consistent with the journalistic standards of Autosport but I'm not so sure if it measures up to AtlasF1. However, I have an open mind and I'll give Autosport-Atlas the benefit of the doubt. It's my opinion that Sauber making an inquiry to AD belongs in the Grapevine. Sauber beginning talks with BAR regarding AD belongs in the News Section.

If Sauber replaces JV with Ant I'll write a lavish retraction!

[bira]

scdecade, if I remember correctly (I haven't got the magazine next to me atm) Rowlinson's article actually clarifies Davidson's contractual situation - I think he is able to race, if he gets a seat, in 2005 but BAR will not let him sign a long-term (post 2005) contract, as they want him available in case Button leaves.

To the best of my knowledge, the Sauber contact with Davidson was much more than a casual one. Moreover, and I said this elsewhere, I think people are seriously ignoring the situation that if JV malperforms (for whatever reason) in a few more races, his leave would be pretty much a done deal - and he may well not even contest it.

What is extremely news-worthy, however, is that Sauber has already begun exploring such an option. It says something about their relationship and it says something about their work together in winter testing and in the first race of the season.

As for Sauber's denials: Sauber denying he has made a decision on signing Villeneuve - just days before announcing it (and as we discovered days later, he was denying it already after it was signed... -- and notice that he's denying an Autosport scoop there )

And the second one: Sauber says he has no plans to switch to Michelin - and I know from Pierre that he was already deep in negotiations with them at that point

[Admiral Thrawn]

To be honest, when I subscribed to AtlasF1 about a week ago, I did just that: subscribe to AtlasF1.

Quite frankly I don't care about Autosport.com or Autosport Magazine. It's not a website I visited with any regularity nor a magazine which I've taken any notice of in stores here in Australia, although I'll make more of an effort now considering it seems to be held in such high regard (is it even sold here? ).

My point is this merger doesn't bother me at all if the original service provided by AtlasF1, that I paid my subscription for, remains uncompromised.

[Tomecek]

I think this discussion was not necessary if people had understanding of differencies between Autosport Magazine and Autosport.com. Having say that even before merge Autosport.com subscribers could not / did not expect to get full Autosport Magazine articles.

Nothing changed then...

[Daff]

Originally posted by bira

As someone stated before, it's not like other websites are not going to quote from the Autosport Magazine article, giving credit to it, today or tomorrow. So it really just remains a question of who breaks it first. We get the PRIVILEGE of breaking this story first - our readers get to hear about it before ANYONE else, including the Autosport Magazine subscribers. And in return for that privilege, we give them a single line of promotion? Wow. What a price to pay

Well, the whole point of paying for access is to get exclusive-indepth coverage...now we're getting exclusive previews of what's coming in Autosport?.
When I joined Atlas, it was the best out there...I didn't have to buy a magazine, because I got the news and stories delivered on my screen every day...which was why I chose to pay for it. It seems that I will have to review that choice and start buying magazines agains...and stop paying for Atlas.

Regards,

Jakob

[parkiw]

Bira,

I don't want to moan too much, because I really think this merger deserves a chance. But the main site's front page at, http://www.autosport-atlas.com, lists this particular story at the very top, in the biggest font, with a big sign saying "Exclusive". If it's exclusive to autosport-atlas then I (as a paying subscriber) should have access to the full story. If it's only exclusive to the print magazine, and not to a-a then it's surely not right to label it as such nor give it that prominence on the front page?

If a non-subscriber went to autosport-atlas.com, saw that headline so prominently and paid the subscription fee to read the exclusive, wouldn't they be rightly miffed to then be told to go buy the print magazine?

Cheers,

Ian

[stylus]

edit to previous post: it's possible this is partly because AtlasF1 came across as "serious" broadsheet reporting where other sites were more like tabloid snippets of the latest headlines, rumours & a mess of images. Atlas seemed quieter (in a good way) and more detailed.

But the promotion draws attention to the fact that a print magazine carries more information (of sorts) than an online one and suggests that there is less in-depth coverage here too - that it's lightweight in content as well as being virtual.

Even if it's a daft comparison, not true and nothing in the quality of the content has changed.

How you could promote the magazine more gently in those articles, I don't know, as references to "Autosport exclusive" confuse the print/site names, in much the same way as AtlasF1 and the BB were muddled. I can only suggest a separate panel or logo for those "advance/ privileged relationship" stories, but that would probably infuriate people just as much.

[Dudley]

Well my 2 concerns on this one have been fixed.

1 - Bira's concrete statement that it's news not rumour. tbh, it read to me like a grapevine rumour initially. That it is definetly not, and that the news/grapeline divide remains is very comforting.

2 - The whole "interview" bit. Tbh, bira it might be worth looking into how that could be put slightly clearer. Maybe change that last line to...

"This story was taken from our exclusive advance access to Autosport print content. The full interview is in the 17th March issue of Autosport magazine"

[scdecade]

Originally posted by bira
scdecade, if I remember correctly (I haven't got the magazine next to me atm) Rowlinson's article actually clarifies Davidson's contractual situation - I think he is able to race, if he gets a seat, in 2005 but BAR will not let him sign a long-term (post 2005) contract, as they want him available in case Button leaves.

To the best of my knowledge, the Sauber contact with Davidson was much more than a casual one. Moreover, and I said this elsewhere, I think people are seriously ignoring the situation that if JV malperforms (for whatever reason) in a few more races, his leave would be pretty much a done deal - and he may well not even contest it.

What is extremely news-worthy, however, is that Sauber has already begun exploring such an option. It says something about their relationship and it says something about their work together in winter testing and in the first race of the season.

As for Sauber's denials: Sauber denying he has made a decision on signing Villeneuve - just days before announcing it (and as we discovered days later, he was denying it already after it was signed... -- and notice that he's denying an Autosport scoop there )

And the second one: Sauber says he has no plans to switch to Michelin - and I know from Pierre that he was already deep in negotiations with them at that point

bira, i don't have the article in front of me either because i get my news from an online magazine. if the online magazine doesn't give complete coverage then i'll have to review things.

"sauber contact with davidson"=rumor. "sauber contact with bar"=news.

it's extremely newsworthy that if jv doesn't perform he'll be replced?!? lmao. isn't that true for every driver on pit lane? if jpm gets blown away by kr worse than dc then i'm sure he'd get handed his ass.

the links you provided don't work. lots of things don't work anymore. in the photo gallery the 2x and 3x links don't work.

i'll stand by my assessment. autosport-atlas's journalistic voice has moved AtlasF1's tone from the sober to the sensational. i liked it the old way.

[Ross Stonefeld]

If Sauber talks to Davidson as a fact, is that not news?

[AlesiUK]

Originally posted by bira
I really honestly don't understand why you'd think we have the right or entitlement to publish an entire article from Autosport Magazine. Why should Haymarket even bother publishing Autosport Magazine if everyone else can just take - A DAY BEFORE AUTOSPORT PUBLISHES - the Autosport content and publish it elsewhere?3490054

First off, congrats on all your hard work coming to fruition Bira.

Second, can i ask 2 questions about the above statement.

1) Why should Haymarket even bother publishing Autosport Magazine if everyone else can just take

Perfectly fair point, but surely autosport-atlas is not the same as everyone else. As sister companies you have a unique relationship that say planet F1 does not have with Autosport print magazine.

2)Of course it makes no sense having the article a day before the print magazine publishes. But what about a day or 2 after? why not run the full article over the weekend at which point the print magazine will have been published and on sale for a few days.


On the change overall, i think the level of news coverage is great,the addition of other formula is a bonus and the journalistic content is of an even higher quality now. Like many others i am not a the new homepage, the scrolling is annoying as are the many ads. One other thing i have noticed is that the schedule for the next GP/weather/ time in Malaysia is now no longer on the homepage which is another disapointment.

The ongoing thing with the line about buying the magazine i dont like either,but thats maybe more to do with my loathing for the dogsdinner of print magazine Autosport has begun.


For me, there are clearly problems/issues with the site at the moment, but that is to be expected after any change as major as this. The time to judge is in a couple of weeks once the staff of autosport-atlas have had a chance to retify the problems.

Best of luck guys/girls

[MarkWill]

Ross,

In the news world, surely, its a fact only if its backed up, and presented as such . We're only as good as the information we get, and I defy you to do anything more than draw inferences from the article as it was presented. It is also my opinion that the presentation of this news was more sensational then factual. I had no problem with your choice of photos - I saw something similar on German tv.

Mark

[ana]

Originally posted by scdecade


bira, i don't have the article in front of me either because i get my news from an online magazine. if the online magazine doesn't give complete coverage then i'll have to review things.

"sauber contact with davidson"=rumor. "sauber contact with bar"=news.

it's extremely newsworthy that if jv doesn't perform he'll be replced?!? lmao. isn't that true for every driver on pit lane? if jpm gets blown away by kr worse than dc then i'm sure he'd get handed his ass.

the links you provided don't work. lots of things don't work anymore. in the photo gallery the 2x and 3x links don't work.

i'll stand by my assessment. autosport-atlas's journalistic voice has moved AtlasF1's tone from the sober to the sensational. i liked it the old way.

I still think that most of you that complain about this article just don't want to hear that JV could be replaced. Every news you don't want to hear is not sloppy journalism.

And yes it is true for every driver, but there were no news or rumors published, that Ferrari are looking for another driver if MS won't preform for example. There were only rumors that AD was approached by Sauber. Who do you think is then more likely to be replaced?

[Andy Davies]

Autosport online has always been like this - I used to find it really annoying, you buy an article online and there's very little in it and then the 'for the full article buy the issue' at the bottom.

[bern@rd]

Originally posted by Dudley

Maybe change that last line to...

"This story was taken from our exclusive advance access to Autosport print content. The full interview is in the 17th March issue of Autosport magazine"

Exactly. I would like the sentence to be changed into this form.
Doesn't sound like a teaser or an advertisement anymore. I second this!

[Backing-kick]

Some people need to get a grip.

The bashing of Autosport/Atlas and Bira here is ludicrous.

Journalism is about finding exclusives - as Autosport have done.

Usually exclusives will be denied but often turn out to be true.

Would you all just prefer regurgetated PR Press Releases with no journalistic endeavour?


The Autosport merger makes Atlas the premier site for F1 and other motorsport news, bar none.

As for not getting "the full article" - you are getting something OVER AND ABOVE what you'd have had before.

Of course they want people to buy the print magazine - it would be silly to give everything in it away - but the Villeneuve article on line is complete as a news story - you're not losing out on anything.

So stop the crap!

People are working hard to make the content better all the time only for a few numbskulls to moan.

[Jackman]

Originally posted by Daff
When I joined Atlas, it was the best out there...I didn't have to buy a magazine, because I got the news and stories delivered on my screen every day...which was why I chose to pay for it. It seems that I will have to review that choice and start buying magazines agains...and stop paying for Atlas.

You're now getting everything that you got before and more, but a little quicker - how is that possibly a bad thing?

[Alfisti]

Problem is confusion, clearly people are struggling to decipher what is and is not "Atlas" work and vice versa.

I am supportive of the move/merger, I can see thebenifits. I can also understand the compelte and mass confusion that appears to have hit almost half of the regular visitors ... unless you make a REAL effort it is very hard to figure out just what the hell happened yesterday and one can't help but feel ... well ... it just seems a bit "tabloid' and all.

A note for admin/management: You could solve a LOT of problems by sending an e-mail to current Atlas subscribers saying "click on the F1 link ya tosser" (or something to that effect) ...... once one does that it feels very "atlasy" again and I think a lot of the jaw dropping and panic will end ;)

[condor]

Originally posted by Alfisti
A note for admin/management: You could solve a LOT of problems by sending an e-mail to current Atlas subscribers saying "click on the F1 link ya tosser" (or something to that effect) ...... once one does that it feels very "atlasy" again and I think a lot of the jaw dropping and panic will end ;)

That would be very useful

Although I've now managed to login to autosport-atlas

[AlesiUK]

I have a further question. With the whole JV/davidson saga the story came from Anthony Rawlinson, who i assume is only employed by Autosport Print magazine(since bira already stated the website and mag are different entities with different staffs). Therefor of course the story was going to be exclusive to the autosport print magazine.

My question is this; If an autosport-atlas website write (say DC or will gray etc) discover and exclusive or manage to swing a unique interview with Jean Todt, would we then get to read the full article online,or would we again have to buy the magazine to get the full interview/story?

Not trying to critisise anyone,just a genuine question?

[Rogue]

OK, I have skimmed the thread and understand and accept that we would not previously have had access to full exclusives and therefore are not missing out on anything with the new deal, but rather gaining a little extra here and there.

Question - what if I said that I would be happy to pay more to be able to read the full Autosport magazine articles, from the minute they are released on the news stands, however, I am in Australia and could not be less interested in waiting for the damn magazine to arrive by plane? I remember when AtlasF1 went subscription - I stopped buying Autosport magazine because I now had an immediate source. I'd like to expand that now, but the print version is useless half way around the world.

Cheers,

[bira]

Please see this thread and post there: http://forums.atlasf...&threadid=77459