[Roneyslelry]

PML. I wrote back to them that Lewis is the Anti-christ to see if they will publish that

lol Yep they did. It's official because it's on a web site. Lewis is the anti-christ that rogers sheep. I have proof

[Verger99]

lol Yep they did. It's official because it's on a web site. Lewis is the anti-christ that rogers sheep. I have proof

Rogers Sheep? Wasn't he a folk singer?

[posimoka]

Rogers Sheep? Wasn't he a folk singer?

No, you're thinking of the Frank Rodgers sheep ranch

[Roneyslelry]

Rogers Sheep? Wasn't he a folk singer?

Hey, accusing him of interfering with farmyard animals and being the arch enemy of the son of the fabled father of creation is one thing but a Folk singer's a bit OTT in my opinion!!

[posimoka]

Here's a "quality" example of British journalism...

Here's another along similar lines from The Sun which says that Hamilton "will get a rollocking from fellow drivers at their meeting in Shanghai this afternoon."

There's also this gem from the same paper saying Hamilton will "confront his most hated rival Fernando Alonso". It was all set to be a "showdown" apparently. What to they base this on? Lewis and Fernando being at the same press conference.

[Verger99]

Here's another along similar lines from The Sun which says that Hamilton "will get a rollocking from fellow drivers at their meeting in Shanghai this afternoon."

I think what all Sun readers want to know is what Keeley, 19, from Southend thinks of the situation.

[Inonanialry]

It was from the Daily Mail, that's not journalism it's a comic.

[aabbaDE]

I think what all Sun readers want to know is what Keeley, 19, from Southend thinks of the situation.

I was looking forward to the debate on the matter in the Daily Star's 'Text Maniacs' section, no doubt along these lines:

WHY IS LWS ALWYS SO AROGNT? I 8 IM

That message was submitted by ioan from Romania.

[maonnjtip]

Wait , uh , confused , uh , hard to type , uh , uh .
A journo tells us we can't believe journos , but he's a journo , and , uh , if we can't believe journos , and , uh , he's a journo , so , uh , we can't believe him when he , uh can't , uh , can't see the screen , ,, where am I ?/?/?///?? what kind , uh of world are we , uh , uh living in , uh , uh , ??

[aabbaDE]

Wait , uh , confused , uh , hard to type , uh , uh .
A journo tells us we can't believe journos , but he's a journo , and , uh , if we can't believe journos , and , uh , he's a journo , so , uh , we can't believe him when he , uh can't , uh , can't see the screen , ,, where am I ?/?/?///?? what kind , uh of world are we , uh , uh living in , uh , uh , ??

I don't think anyone has said anything of the sort. Some journalists and some publications are unreliable and unethical — other journalists and other publications aren't. There's nothing notable about that.

[Verger99]

A journo tells us we can't believe journos , but he's a journo , and , uh ,...

Ignoring the rest of that post (which makes about as much sense as the Daily Mail article), allow me to explain how I differ from the journalist who twisted Webber's words so much.

During the time I ran my BTCC website I ran well over a hundred full-length interviews along with countless post-race comments. I still have the transcript of every single one, and in many cases the tape or minidisc. My ethics meant that every time I quoted a driver or team member I did so word-for-word (occasionally cleaning up their grammar), and always respected the times when they were talking off the record. Occasionally I'd need to clarify what was meant so I would phone or email the interviewee before publishing. Over the course of five years I got contacted one time by one driver to correct a small factual inaccuracy in their profile, I made the necessary correction within five minutes of receiving his email. I could look any of the drivers in the eye and promise them that they would be treated fairly, but that didn't mean that I would kiss their arses: when they screwed up I would write that they'd screwed up.

What I would find is that occasionally a driver would give an interview or a briefing to a bunch of us at the same time, and sometimes you would read an article in another publication a few days later and find it hard to believe that the journalist was listening to the same words coming out of his mouth. This may have been led by the publication's editorial policy; it may have been a journalist with a bias or trying to make a name for himself; it may have just been sloppy work - I don't know.

It frustrates me greatly when journalists or their editors cherry-pick one tiny aspect of an interview and blow it up out of all proportion, especially when they are in a position to influence peoples' opinion. My poor old dad, bless him, reads the Daily Express out of habit and because he doesn't know any better; and as a result has a grossly distorted view of most of the F1 paddock. Sensationalist gibberish like that article in the Mail dangerously misrepresents the view of a well-respected driver like Mark Webber, making him appear bitter and paranoid when in fact he's merely voicing a perfectly reasonable concern about driving standards. I can't blame him for being angry, and would well understand if he refused to give any more interviews to the British press as a result.

[aabbaDE]

Very good post, Dave.

When I undertake interviews as part of my job, I clean the English up to make it readable (might be good if some people did this with their posts on here, incidentally) but without in any way changing the emphasis of what was said, even though the cleaning-up may on occasions have to be rather 'radical' if, for example, the interviewee's English wasn't all that good. And as for trying to make more of one part of an interview than it deserves, I believe that a good interviewer should be able to elicit interesting and pertinent responses through asking the questions in the right way, rather than having to do anything with the headline or the answers.

This is not to say, of course, that interviewees won't sometimes say a very small thing or in such a way that it is worth making more of a minor comment. Nor do I ignore the fact that PR paranoia can make it very difficult for journalists to get anything interesting out of interviewees on occasion, as people seek to make ever more bland and inoffensive public statements.

[posimoka]

Good points both

I'm very fortunate in that I get to talk to Riccardo Patrese often for his website, and he answers site visitors questions. I make every effort to ensure that I reproduce his answers word for word, but having said that, given his first language is not English I do sometimes (not often) need to re-phrase an answer to reflect his meaning accurately. Like Dave I also respect 'off the record' comments because if I did not there would be no trust between us.

I suspect drivers all know particular journalists that they trust implicitly, and others that they are more circumspect around. One problem with the Hamilton "phenomenon" is that F1 is news, and as such it attracts journalists who do not regularly cover the sport, and are looking for an "angle" to slant their article in a particular way. Adding to that are the thousands of websites all looking to get hits, and that influences the way stories are reported and re-hashed.

[kuklame]

Here's another one to throw into the heap

"Massa reveals Ferrari fears"

"We were struggling a little bit in the weekend and just struggling to make the right lap, and it looks like the McLaren guys had a more easier car to put the lap together," Massa told autosport.com. "Anyway we don't know how it is going to be in the race.

"We had a similar result in the last race, and had a very strong pace to win the race. I hope to have a strong pace to win the race and try and see if we can improve our car a bit, especially on the long stints"

http://www.sport.co.uk/news/Motorspo...ari_fears.aspx

[MwhwF6bp]

It frustrates me greatly when journalists or their editors cherry-pick one tiny aspect of an interview and blow it up out of all proportion, especially when they are in a position to influence peoples' opinion. My poor old dad, bless him, reads the Daily Express out of habit and because he doesn't know any better; and as a result has a grossly distorted view of most of the F1 paddock. Sensationalist gibberish like that article in the Mail dangerously misrepresents the view of a well-respected driver like Mark Webber, making him appear bitter and paranoid when in fact he's merely voicing a perfectly reasonable concern about driving standards. I can't blame him for being angry, and would well understand if he refused to give any more interviews to the British press as a result.

And some people wonder why drivers are boring these days

[casinochniks]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/moto...ne/7680529.stm

and here is what Mark webber actually thinks about it all, Driving standards, penalties, the championsip and journalists

[MwhwF6bp]

Andrew Benson, ex-Autosport. Does the Beeb proud.