164 replies to this topic

[glorius&victorius]

I used to regularly visit the grandprix.com with interest to get the latest, inside, behind the scenes, underground, conspiracy theories doing the round in Formula One. However lately I visit the site less as I get the impression that most are one-off conspiracy and behind the scene stories, which never develop into a real story.

The site positions itself as reporting on the business of formula 1, the corporate dynamics, board room stories, but most are rumours: 1 out of 5 ever progresses beyond rumours.

At first I enjoyed reading this stuff, but lately (especially post spy-affair) I lost my appetite for grandprix.com. Sort of the same how I lost my appetite of watching CNN after September 11, where I think objectivity was completely lost.

But don't get me wrong.... to have a bit of rumour-phantasy-conspiracy filled reading of F1 they are ok to have around.

I wonder how others think about grandprix.com?

[Buttoneer]

For me it doesn't matter whether I agree with the opinion or not, but it's nice to read a site that expresses one. I like the journal at Autosport for the same reason but the news stories are just very sterile affairs.

I'd love to know, really, what some of the writers think about the Renault v McLaren verdicts but I don't suppose we will find out.

[Galko877]

I regard that site as F1 tabloid.

[Chiara]

I find it a bit biased and opinionated for my tastes to be honest.

That's not to say other people might not enjoy and like it, just I prefer to read open-minded and fair journalism based on facts where the reader can make up their own minds. Not being told what to think.

I haven't been recently, but in the past they do seem to have been a bit preoccuppied with conspiracy theories at every turn.

[F1Fanatic.co.uk]

I keep an eye on it, I think some of political and business writing is good, and I like some of the other columns as well. "The Mole" irritates me though.

[Sébastien]

An often ill-informed, opinionated and conspiracy theory-filled piece of **** website.

"The Mole" articles were fun to read once, but now those have grown tedious and old.

But well there's a market for a site like that I guess, not a large market judging from the very few advertisers they have left though.

[Timstr11]

Maybe the goodies are now kept for their grandprixplus publiaction, which requires a subscription fee.

[MortenF1]

They've had one scoop, that's all I can remember. Wasn't it Gascoyne has left Toyota? I think it was something to do with Toyota atleast, that they had first.

[Atreiu]

I like the encyclopedia.

[SlateGray]

Ferrari fans do not like the site because it lacks the pro Ferrari bias evident in most of the other F1 sites. grandprix.com very often has the story first, well before the pro Ferrari rags have anything at all.

Did grandprix.com get the Mac ban story wrong?

[Galko877]

Originally posted by SlateGray
Ferrari fans do not like the site because it lacks the pro Ferrari bias evident in most of the other F1 sites. grandprix.com very often has the story first, well before the pro Ferrari rags have anything at all.

Did grandprix.com get the Mac ban story wrong?

Grandprix.com IS biased. You are right though, it's not pro-Ferrari bias but anti-Ferrari. BTW, they got very many stories wrong recently, so they are not only biased but also not credible.

[polymath]

Seems to me Pit Pass had some scoops this year. I found "The Mole" mildly entertaining at first now seems a bit old to me.

[Risil]

It blends news reporting and analysis very well. Occasionally there is some dehydrated humour in there. The Mole can be interesting when it's not being weird or obscure, plus I have the mental image of every TNF poster carrying out their affairs in exactly the same manner. The encyclopedia is also excellent.

[Hacklerf]

I refuse to believe anything i read about F1 from any site other than Autosport.com

[Scudetto]

Saward's Italian GP race report title: "McLaren (and the sport) win at Monza." A headline like that requires no further scrutiny to ascertain where its author's allegiance lies. He's a shill, nearly unable to report on last year's events without waxing poetic on McLaren being a of paradigm of sportsmanship and integrity. Eat crow, Joe.

[Raelene]

I used to really like them, but over the years, they have been wrong on so many things with their opinions - and are very slow to retract (if they do) when wrong

too much conspiracy theory stuff and "fair and balanced (my ass) opinions for my liking these days and not enough real news

[robnyc]

Originally posted by Hacklerf
I refuse to believe anything i read about F1 from any site other than Autosport.com

Like they're not biased either??
A lot of opinions/less facts are written here as well.

[lustigson]

Originally posted by robnyc
Like they're not biased either??

I find Autosport.com a very British-oriented site, especially with Lewis Hamilton's success and the McLaren spy case of late. And from a comment made by Bira some time ago on this forum, I understand just about half of the visitors are not British.

GrandPrix.com is an enternaining source for different news/rumour and analysis. A bit tabloid-esque, indeed. It's one of only two F1-related sites I check several times a day, however, the other being, well... yeah.;) However, I do tend to accept news as fact only when Autosport posts it.

[SlateGray]

Originally posted by Hacklerf
I refuse to believe anything i read about F1 from any site other than Autosport.com

So you believe that Mac are banned from the drivers and constructors championships for 07 and 08 as reported by Autosport?;)

A wise person looks at all sources and makes up their own mind!

[lustigson]

Originally posted by SlateGray
So you believe that Mac are banned from the drivers and constructors championships for 07 and 08 as reported by Autosport?;)

A wise person looks at all sources and makes up their own mind!

A mistake here and there excepted, of course...;)

[robnyc]

Originally posted by lustigson

I find Autosport.com a very British-oriented site, especially with Lewis Hamilton's success and the McLaren spy case of late. A

Yup

[Phucaigh]

Autosport is British biased as already stated though it is excellent for news.
Grandprix.com was McLaren biased in the spy scandal, Grandprix-Plus is a very good F1 e-magazine.

[robnyc]

Originally posted by Phucaigh
Autosport is British biased as already stated though it is excellent for news.
Grandprix.com was McLaren biased in the spy scandal, Grandprix-Plus is a very good F1 e-magazine.

the news is everywhere. You just have to know how to read it and interpret it. For example a quote from a driver or a team boss is the same in Autosport as it is in Marca or planet-f1
The heading for the article is most of the time BS and does not represent 100% what the actual quote says. This pattern is also followed by Autosport journalist as well as the Spanish press. I would however agree that a lot of journalist opinions are written in some of the Spanish press but so what. We should all know how to interpret this articles by now.

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by robnyc


the news is everywhere. You just have to know how to read it and interpret it. For example a quote from a driver or a team boss is the same in Autosport as it is in Marca or planet-f1
The heading for the article is most of the time BS and does not represent 100% what the actual quote says. This pattern is also followed by Autosport journalist as well as the Spanish press. I would however agree that a lot of journalist opinions are written in some of the Spanish press but so what. We should all know how to interpret this articles by now.

Spot on. Even a biassed article contains fact, you just need to work out which bits are which and draw your own conclusions. I think that refusing to read articles which do not support your own opinions is a bit weak.

[scottb32]

Originally posted by SlateGray
A wise person looks at all sources and makes up their own mind!

May I add that when grandprix.com mentions a rumor - they call it a rumor ("our sources say", "we have overheard", etc.). They speculate on several items - and let the reader know they are speculating. Because of this, I find them credible - even though they have gotten numerous items wrong (e.g. Massa to Toyota and Alonso to Ferrari).

[COUGAR508]

Originally posted by Atreiu
I like the encyclopedia.

Yes, that is a very handy and valuable resource. However, I find some of the news coverage on grandprix.com slightly pretentious.

[alfa1]

Originally posted by Galko877


Grandprix.com IS biased. You are right though, it's not pro-Ferrari bias but anti-Ferrari.

I've never thought of it as specifically anti-Ferrari, but more towards an anti-FIA or anti-Max Mosley.
Certainly anti 'FIA being generous to Ferrari at the expense of everyone else'.

But as other people have commented, there are straight up news sites for straight up news, if thats all you ever want.

Also agree with other people who say the Mole articles arent so good anymore. Not what they used to be years ago.

[MichaelPM]

Originally posted by SlateGray
Ferrari fans do not like the site because it lacks the pro Ferrari bias evident in most of the other F1 sites. grandprix.com very often has the story first, well before the pro Ferrari rags have anything at all.

Did grandprix.com get the Mac ban story wrong?

Its a good refuge from all the sometimes smoothering pro-Ferrari stuff alright, layed back and good for a laugh when they poke the FIA.

[i.am.cloned]

Reading them before SpyGate had been a pleasant experience for me even when I had a different opinion on the matters. But they were so shocked and irriated by Spy Saga developments that to declare loudly again and again their disgust to FIA, Ferrari, Alonso and others they thought to be responsible for MacLaren humilation become more important than anything else for them. So I stopped coming back. May be new season brings new hope for them and they'll be able if not to forgive then at least to forget and move on.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by SlateGray


So you believe that Mac are banned from the drivers and constructors championships for 07 and 08 as reported by Autosport?;)

Maybe they were.

[Dudley]

That it's largely complete fiction that gets lucky 1% of the time and yells about it, whilst quietly deleting stories which later turn out to be balls.

[Ben]

As someone who's worked in a racing paddock I like grandprix.com because it's clearly based on well placed tips from people in the paddock. The reality is that most paddock rumour ends up coming to nothing but the fact that what you're getting is the mindset of those involved makes grandprix.com worth reading IMO.

To say they're anti-Ferrari is not entirely true. They're more anti-FIA in the sense that they can't stand the selective reasoning and complete inconsistency of the FIA. They appear to have enough sources to not care if they upset too many people.

Ben

[Jerome]

A lot of gossip... but also a lot of explanations, in which they often clearly indicate what part of their story is fact and what part of their story is their opinion/conjecture. During the Mac Affair they were now and then wrong but they at least tried to explain to the layman what could be behind all the stuff... sometimes Autosport is so clean and fact-based, the stories are clouded behind the pr smokescreens several parties throw around. That is not the mistake of Autosport, but the rotten stench that sport-organisers have thrown all around the world of sport.

So I read Grand Prix. com if I want to think (and siphon) and read Autosport for the discussions and the facts. Excellent combination, according to me.

[whatto999]

Does anyone know why Wright stopped writing for grandprix.com couple of years ago? His articles were ultra-excellent!

[F12007]

They are definitely anti-Ferrari. Even though I'm a big Ferrari fan, I do like going to grandprix.com to hear the other side of the argument.

[Dudley]

Originally posted by whatto999
Does anyone know why Wright stopped writing for grandprix.com couple of years ago? His articles were ultra-excellent!

If you're going to answer your own question it's not very sporting.

[ClubmanGT]

Originally posted by F12007
They are definitely anti-Ferrari. Even though I'm a big Ferrari fan, I do like going to grandprix.com to hear the other side of the argument.

Agreed. It's like the PlanetF1 forums...when you get worried about how crazy Mosely is, just head over to PF1 and you'll realise that he doesn't even come close to crazy

[Modern Lover]

Originally posted by Hacklerf
I refuse to believe anything i read about F1 from any site other than Autosport.com

Does that exclude bbc.co.uk and ITV?

BTW, i used to fancy grandprix.com, but have as many others found their stories often to be mere guessing.

[KWSN - DSM]

I still go there mostly for the Encyclopedia.

There bias have become much worse the last couple of years, there is naturally nothing wrong in thinking differently than me, but when matters turn and their position is clearly completely wrong, that are less than gracious about doing an about face.

The whole Spy-gate last year was poorly handled by them, nothing wrong in thinking that 'someone' was shafting McLaren for sinister and unknown reasons. But despite one factual piece of the other being presented to the world at large, they continued to harp on about how McLaren was being singled out.

It is a shame as I like a lot of the writing they can do, and have done in the past. I understand that they are predominately 'British oriented site' but surely like Atlas, there is a huge following outside the British Isle's does Saward not live in France himself?

I will accept facts about F1 from any source, I just want that it is the actual facts and not some madeup story.

[Zarathustra]

I don't understand why people say they don't read grandprix.com because it's anti this or pro that. Can they not stand news and features from sources that don't share their view?

[Hacklerf]

Originally posted by Modern Lover

Does that exclude bbc.co.uk and ITV?

BTW, i used to fancy grandprix.com, but have as many others found their stories often to be mere guessing.

Yes of course, the thing is, i know Autosport are supportive for UK orientated drivers, but i don't mind that, as it is to be expected, but ITV and BBC hardly update their sites, they wait until Autosport put up a story and then they just copy it.

My process is to check Autosport.com for new stories, then i check newsnow for F1 news, if there are new stories on the newsnow feed, i read them, but don't believe them until Autosport confirms it

Of course Autosport sometimes makes a mistake in publishing, but they are quick to correct it.

[Risil]

Originally posted by Dudley


If you're going to answer your own question it's not very sporting.

My my, Dudley. Angst seems to have almost mellowed in the last month or two, and now you're saying all these horrid, irascible things all of a sudden.

[bira]

Originally posted by SlateGray
Did grandprix.com get the Mac ban story wrong?

Actually yes, they did. In the Hungarian Grand Prix, Saturday night, grandprix.com reported that the race stewards have cleared McLaren and Alonso of any wrongdoing. 30 minutes after this breaking story, the stewards issued a statement saying McLaren will not get any points for the Hungarian GP, while Alonso has been demoted five places.

The question you need to ask, though, is: did grandprix.com issue a clarification immediately after realising they made a mistake? Or shortly after? Or a little while after? Or ever? In fact, did grandprix.com ever clarify or apologise for any of the errors they ever made?

Credibility is not measured in whether or not someone makes a mistake - it's measured in how one owns up to such a mistake and what one does to rectify it.

A bigger man than you would probably understand that. But you've never been one to actually see beyond the gloating.

[KWSN - DSM]

Originally posted by bira


Actually yes, they did. In the Hungarian Grand Prix, Saturday night, grandprix.com reported that the race stewards have cleared McLaren and Alonso of any wrongdoing. 30 minutes after this breaking story, the stewards issued a statement saying McLaren will not get any points for the Hungarian GP, while Alonso has been demoted five places.

The question you need to ask, though, is: did grandprix.com issue a clarification immediately after realising they made a mistake? Or shortly after? Or a little while after? Or ever? In fact, did grandprix.com ever clarify or apologise for any of the errors they ever made?

Credibility is not measured in whether or not someone makes a mistake - it's measured in how one owns up to such a mistake and what one does to rectify it.

A bigger man than you would probably understand that. But you've never been one to actually see beyond the gloating.

Miaww....

[lustigson]

Originally posted by bira
Credibility is not measured in whether or not someone makes a mistake - it's measured in how one owns up to such a mistake and what one does to rectify it.

Hear, hear!

[Galko877]

Originally posted by bira


Actually yes, they did. In the Hungarian Grand Prix, Saturday night, grandprix.com reported that the race stewards have cleared McLaren and Alonso of any wrongdoing. 30 minutes after this breaking story, the stewards issued a statement saying McLaren will not get any points for the Hungarian GP, while Alonso has been demoted five places.

The question you need to ask, though, is: did grandprix.com issue a clarification immediately after realising they made a mistake? Or shortly after? Or a little while after? Or ever? In fact, did grandprix.com ever clarify or apologise for any of the errors they ever made?

Credibility is not measured in whether or not someone makes a mistake - it's measured in how one owns up to such a mistake and what one does to rectify it.

A bigger man than you would probably understand that. But you've never been one to actually see beyond the gloating.

[Sébastien]

Originally posted by bira
Actually yes, they did. In the Hungarian Grand Prix, Saturday night, grandprix.com reported that the race stewards have cleared McLaren and Alonso of any wrongdoing. 30 minutes after this breaking story, the stewards issued a statement saying McLaren will not get any points for the Hungarian GP, while Alonso has been demoted five places.

On top of that they ran the next day a story about Felipe Massa already knowing about the McLaren penalty.
Of course that BS story vanished from their site too without a trace or apology.

a group of F1 journalists were in a restaurant on the Saturday night and Felipe Massa was at another table.

"As they were leaving, one of the journalists said to Felipe, "It looks like nothing's going to happen tomorrow," to which Felipe replied, "No, no, no . . . Alonso's been penalized and McLaren are not going to score any Constructors' points." This was just after 11pm, though there was no official announcement until 11.35pm. Someone needs to ask how is it that Felipe knew the stewards' decision before anyone else."

Originally posted by bira
Credibility is not measured in whether or not someone makes a mistake - it's measured in how one owns up to such a mistake and what one does to rectify it .

[se7en_24]

Originally posted by SlateGray


So you believe that Mac are banned from the drivers and constructors championships for 07 and 08 as reported by Autosport?;)

A wise person looks at all sources and makes up their own mind!

Where did you get the news that Jacques had a Mclaren contract that time, news you said was definitely correct.

[SlateGray]

Originally posted by bira

Actually yes, they did. In the Hungarian Grand Prix, Saturday night, grandprix.com reported that the race stewards have cleared McLaren and Alonso of any wrongdoing. 30 minutes after this breaking story, the stewards issued a statement saying McLaren will not get any points for the Hungarian GP, while Alonso has been demoted five places.

Thanks for the answer to my question, so it was not only Autosport that dropped the ball.

[Chiara]

Originally posted by SlateGray

Thanks for the answer to my question, so it was not only Autosport that dropped the ball.

AFAIK Autosport dropped the ball as you put it because a reliable source from inside the WMSC came out and reported what had been discussed just before they had left. This was that McLaren were going to be excluded from the championship. After this person had departed further discussions took place in which I believe Bernie Ecclestone stepped in and pointed out the serious implications for McLaren should they be excluded and the final punishment was changed.

So its not like they made something up, just that subsequently the punishment was changed to something with far less draconian and far reaching consequences for the company involved. The difference being the WMSC member had jumped the gun before the final conclusion had been reached.