AutoSport... Becoming Sadly Compromised Rag?

[gcdugas]

Journalism 101... who, what, where, when, how, why...

Let's compare two simple articles and learn what we can about allegiances being revealed versus "journalistic neutrality".

This firsr article starts with a simple introductory paragraph refreshing us with recent events and the issue of submitting a team entry for the 2010 FIA F1 season.

"...[Mosley recommends] they should file their entries in next year's championship with conditions attached to their entry forms.

Right away in the first sentence of the second paragraph this article sets the tone of debunking "spin" by pointing out a blatant contradiction...

It now appears that Mosley is suggesting they do exactly the contrary...

Then the simple analysis in the body of the article continues...

As FIA President Mosley pointed out, any changes to the regulations require unanimous agreement between all confirmed teams, yet the majority of the near-dozen potential new entrants hoping to enter F1 filed their entries because the radical cuts in permitted team budgets made it possible for them to do so in the first place.

Therefore the FOTA members might very well sign up, but they have absolutely no guarantees that their demands will be accepted by the new entrants who surely have no wish of seeing the budget roof raised higher.

Compare this with the AutoSport article's regurgitation, complete with "spin", of the FIA's press release here. Zero analysis, zero debunking, zero investigation into contradictory facts that are just a few days old (the revelation that it was Mosley's idea to submit conditional entries), zero journalistic integrity. Just plain sloppy at best and financially compromised at worst.

Journalism be damned, AutoSport, what was once a great publication, has made their bed with the man who is manifestly ruining F1. Like a cancer, Max's infectious decay has affected other parties too. It is all very sad. Uggh...

I have said this before but I now view AutoSport as Solzheneitzen viewed Pravda.

[Giblet]

Print magazines are getting harder and harder to sell to people these days, and therefore hard to sell to advertisers.

Unfortunately, these kind of mags feel they need to use sensationalism to sell issues and get subscriptions, and their online versions will usually reflect what is in their paper version.

[gcdugas]

Print magazines are getting harder and harder to sell to people these days, and therefore hard to sell to advertisers.

Unfortunately, these kind of mags feel they need to use sensationalism to sell issues and get subscriptions, and their online versions will usually reflect what is in their paper version.

That is besides the point. They must have integrity and trustworthiness first. Plus it doesn't matter if they are print or web based. They need to sell web ads too. Paper is going the way of stone tablets.

[Giblet]

I am aware they must have integrity and trustworthiness and wasn't contradicting that fact, and as I was trying to explain, precisely on point for that matter, why some magazines have gone astray.

Hard to sell print or web media, and many are relying on attention grabbing crappy journalism.

[modbaraban]

Wait a second. Did AutoSport sign an entry for F1 2010 too? Why is this in 'Formula One cars' then?

[safeaschuck]

Yeah, I've got that issue, it was the only place I found that mentioned it being Moseley's idea to submit conditional entries.

Thing is unless you can generate revenue on the scale of a major news organisation you can't really be impartial, you have to sell out for access. Race engine tech, Racecar engineering et al, all do it I'm afraid. Their articles, whilst very enlightening are bassically adverts for whichever company is producing the technology in question.

[Ciro Pabón]

Wait a second. Did AutoSport sign an entry for F1 2010 too? Why is this in 'Formula One cars' then?

Thanks, moved already.

[WhiteBlue]

I see Autosport as a benchmark in terms of publishing F1 news. Smaller online outlets sometimes have news earlier but Autosport seems to apply a great deal of dillligence to their reporting. It is very seldom that they have to admitt to have made mistakes in reporting.

Papers often have to make judgement on sources. All kinds of people with an agenda try to place items to apply further spin to ongoing stories. So to focus on facts and wait for confirmation on dodgy issues is good practise. The same applies when extremely controversial political issues are going on. Some publications can afford to be 200% partisan but more serious organisations will have to live with the movers and shakers on both sides of a conflict in the future.

If I were to name a publication which I never take serious it is paddock talk. So perhaps that is something to read for balance if Autosport is not pleasing enough. When it comes to a partisan position in any FIA vs. FOTA/GPMA issue I can also recommend GPUpdate.net. You can bet your last shirt that they will always put an anti FIA spin to anything.

[pjobmathew]

Yeah , Autosport really disappointed me . I paid big money to get it to my country . Now I have 2 auto magazines coming instead .

But dude this is happening everywhere you can see this in every newspaper and magazine ,so i don't see it as anything to be sad about

[donskar]

Here's the other side of the journalism coin:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... x-contrast

[Ciro Pabón]

... and here is the other-other side, from the german guy whose name I cannot remember:

"You cannot see F1 without Ferrari or the other manufacturers who have participated for so long. I really believe that somehow they must find a solution, and the solution can only be that it suits those teams that have built up F1 to the state that it is now. You cannot expect drastic changes to be accepted by such important manufacturers," the famous German added.

"Yes, you have a target; yes, you want to reduce costs; but you have to do it step by step, you cannot turn the world around in one day. That is impossible."

However, the world turns around in one day, every day. That's why we have day and night.

[gcdugas]

I see Autosport as a benchmark in terms of publishing F1 news. Smaller online outlets sometimes have news earlier but Autosport seems to apply a great deal of dillligence to their reporting. It is very seldom that they have to admitt to have made mistakes in reporting.

WB are you sure you want that statement attached to your name? "Due diligence"?... I plainly pointed out that a rival site was diligent whereas AutoSport neglected to apply even the most basic journalistic questions of.... how, what, WHY, where, when and who. Why did the "benchmark publication" fail to question the manifest contradiction in Mosley's statements made within a ten day period? Why did they not point out that Mosley was offering the teams an invitation to commit themselves unconditionally before it was certain to what they were committing themselves to and there was no guarantee that they could "shape things"?

Interestingly such "rule making power" has been denied to the FOTA teams when all ten teams agreed and made their version of cost cutting proposals but somehow magically the new entrants have a claim to such power? Hmmm?

You can learn as much about someone's positions from his omissions as you can from what they include. The "benchmark" has been leaving out an awful lot recently.

[RacingManiac]

I don't particularly find Autosport better or worse, but F1 media in general has usually been sensationalistic(if that is a word), at least in english language which I actually find to be the case for UK media in general in how most of them carry any news story(barring maybe BBC, but I am not in UK, so I don't have maybe the most accurate view of it). And English F1 media is a UK dominant business. Any news story can be blown out of proportion overnight, from any of the ###-gate saga in F1, or some talent show contestent story....How many of the previous stories follows the arc of someone being pushed to super stardom, then increase media coverage turn negative image scrutinizing, turn epic recovery and or burried in the next wave of senstationalist headlines.....Hamilton, Button, Spy-Gate, Lying Gate, Susan Boyle...etc:D

[Nat]

Because Autosport run it as a news item and not as a feature article. It should inform people in the first place of the facts, and not necessarily ask questions of who, when and where, which should a journalist do when writing an article.

[gcdugas]

Because Autosport run it as a news item and not as a feature article. It should inform people in the first place of the facts, and not necessarily ask questions of who, when and where, which should a journalist do when writing an article.

If it were run as a news item, then yes. They should just post it up in its entirety... and extend an invitation to the FOTA for equal time.

But it was not run as a news item. There was a full six paragraphs of editorial commentary before the first item from Max's press release was cited and only selected items were quoted interspersed by another four paragraphs of editorial commentary. Sorry, this was presented as a journalistic piece, not a "news item".