A Plea For Integrity In Cycling Journalism in 2010

[Anonymous]

Today Team Astana held what I imagine was a rather small press conference in Pisa, Italy. Here's the Cycling News take:

Spain's Alberto Contador is ready to handle the stress of winning a third Tour de France. Team Astana's star, in a press conference today in Pisa, Italy, said that he learned from the problems with Lance Armstrong at this year's Tour.

"I learned how to handle the stress and those situations, because at the Tour you always give a lot and have to manage your energy well. I think this will serve me, it helps me to mature and to remain cool," said Contador.

Armstrong left with team manager Johan Bruyneel to form RadioShack. The two have criticized Contador since the Tour ended, saying he let stardom go to his head. Contador said that what they said did not bother him.

"Not at all," continued Contador. "I want to think about the sporting aspects and not the polemics. For me 2009 is over now and I want to think about training and my own goals.

"Could we become friends in the future? In sport, you can never say never. I know that during the Tour things were difficult, but in the future no one knows."

That was a polite statement - hardly Earth-shaking. But here's the quote Reuters managed to take from the same conversation:

"It's possible that I could be friends or an ally with Lance in the future. In sport you can never say never."

Alberto often gives interviews in Spanish, so OK, differences in translation can exist. But Reuters managed to turn that quote into THIS headline (this is the New York Times version)

Armstrong And I Could Be Team Mates Again, Says Contador

I certainly didn't see that quote in the story anywhere. I understand that the newspaper business is in the crapper, and that sensational headlines can sell papers or generate ad clicks. But I picture this headline being written by the Editor in Spiderman, not the New York Times. Let's apply a bit of logic.

Armstrong plans to race for Radio Shack in 2010 & 2011
Armstrong is willing to do anything in his power to win an 8th Tour
Contador will ride for Astana in 2010
Armstrong & Contador can only be pro cycling teammates if Contador rides for Radio Shack in 2011, joining Bruyneel & all of the Astana riders who left him behind. He'd pass up the chance to hire stronger riders at Astana, start a team from scratch, sign with Quick Step, Garmin, Caisse D'Epargne or some new suitor, to re-enter the seventh ring of Hell & help Lance win? That possibility only exists in a Reuters headline, and now in the minds of poor saps who have seen it.

This is already too wordy for a forum. We've all seen poor translations cause people to run amock. Spin is encouraged, because controversy and certain personalities attract readers. But twitter quotes aren't interviews.

I'm sure you all have your own gripes, as the past few months people just made up stories and rumors and those were repeated. I'll post this Contador quote one last time, and then one from a post-Tour story by Diane Pucin in the L.A. Times.

"Well, my relationship with Lance is zero. My relationship with him is zero. I think that independently of what his character is, he is still a great champion. He has won seven Tours and played a big part in this one, too. But it's different to speak at a personal level. I have never really admired him that much, or will ever, but of course as a cyclist, he is a great champion."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/8172975.stm
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoChannel=1004&videoId=108718

There weren't warm handshakes or hugs between the teammates on the podium last Sunday and Contador surely was dealt a tough team hand to play -- how do you interpose yourself between a legend and the man who helped make him one? -- but the public Armstrong bashing Contador has engaged in since leaving France seems pointless and is likely focusing Armstrong very clearly for another run at Contador next year when Armstrong leads the new Team Radio Shack and Contador rides for whoever wins his services.

Honestly, it makes Contador seem like a sore winner and something of a whiner. After all, Contador has forever the yellow jersey from 2009. Armstrong and Astana couldn't have treated him that badly then. You don't win the Tour without assistance from a team.

Meanwhile Armstrong has been updating his Twitter from a beach in Abacos. He seems to be having more fun this week after the three-week race than the winner.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2009/08/contador-on-armstrong-and-tour-in-el-pais.html

Cycling fans deserve better. I wish you all a Happy New Year

 

[craig1985]

I gave up hopes for proper journalism years ago.

 

[Anonymous]

I see your point, but journalism IS journalism.

That headline about them being "mates" is kinda funny, but once you read the article, you realise the headline doesn't mean anything anyway.

A quote is a quote, and the headline didn't actually say "Armstrong and I could be mates", say Contador. See the subtle difference?

Either way, I agree that it would be great if journalists didn't misquote athletes through translation, but it's up to the reader to have some sense of clarity about what is actuallu being said.

Just because a newspaper quotes a rider, it doesn't actually show the mannerism which the rider displayed, which is why I'd rather watch a video interview, than read an article.

 

[progressor]

Oh no! The media may be totally corrupt and driving agendas!! eek Call in rupert murdoch to save the day !!!!

 

[DavidVilla7]

Well, at least it sells.

 

[Anonymous]

Ah, sports journalism is always like this. Posts on blogs and forums are not much better. Look at how Armstrong's mildly spoken good humoured comments on the Jon Stewart show were hyped up as some big attack on Contador. You always get this nonsense. Part of the game of sport is interpretation and speculating on what people say and do - and people will always exaggerate and twist things. You're never going to change that. It's all part of the fun of it.

 

[Anonymous]

got to say, i dont read cycling news site anymore (i just use the rss), but what articles have been replicated on here, it does seem that CN has gone a bit more "tabloid" over the last 6 months.. more headlines, less content..

but it may just be that its the headline grabbing articles that get put on the forum..

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

got to say, i dont read cycling news site anymore (i just use the rss), but what articles have been replicated on here, it does seem that CN has gone a bit more "tabloid" over the last 6 months.. more headlines, less content..

but it may just be that its the headline grabbing articles that get put on the forum..

You really find "Contador prepared to handle stress of 2010 Tour" to be a sensationalist headline?

Susan

 

[Anonymous]

I think the OP is more upset that Contador has said he might one day be on better terms with Armstrong than he is with "journalist integrity".

 

[richwagmn]

I think the OP is more upset that Contador has said he might one day be on better terms with Armstrong than he is with "journalist integrity".

Well the NY Times headline is completely out of line. He said nothing about being teammates that I read. He just said he could have better relations in the future one day.

I agree with the tone of the post though.

I also wish sporting journalists would work more on being journalists than fans. I understand being excited about any great performance, but I don't understand acting like a typical fan (aka Liggett and Sherwin).

 

[Anonymous]

You really find "Contador prepared to handle stress of 2010 Tour" to be a sensationalist headline?

Susan

i never said sensationalist, i said "tabloid"...

and i did say that probably the more "headline grabbing" are the ones referred to on the forum, (so i dont read a fair cross section of articles to comment really).. that doesnt always mean the headline is sensationalist, but the content is headline grabbing..

 

[lucybears]

I see your point, but journalism IS journalism.

That headline about them being "mates" is kinda funny, but once you read the article, you realise the headline doesn't mean anything anyway.

A quote is a quote, and the headline didn't actually say "Armstrong and I could be mates", say Contador. See the subtle difference?

Either way, I agree that it would be great if journalists didn't misquote athletes through translation, but it's up to the reader to have some sense of clarity about what is actuallu being said.

Just because a newspaper quotes a rider, it doesn't actually show the mannerism which the rider displayed, which is why I'd rather watch a video interview, than read an article.

Why can't CN give the questions put to and answered by Contador instead of making what should be an interview into an article ?
Often I find I get more from a googled translation of the original press conferences more informative than CNs efforts.

http://translate.google.co.uk/trans.../site/noticias-ficha.asp?id=20516&sl=es&tl=en

 

[Kingsley A]

Unfortunately it seems to me that Journalistic Integrity is rapidly becoming an even bigger oxymoron than Military Intelligence.

The first rule of journalism appears to be "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."

Of course, there are plenty of exceptions to both of these statements but it is being increasing incumbent on the individual to to seek out multiple sources to uncover the basic truth rather than being able to rely on the integrity of any given journalist or publication. This goes far beyond cycling or even sports in general. Even publications that in previous generations could be viewed as accurate by virtue of their being broadsheet or maybe even high-brow are now frequently guilty of lies by omission to spin a story into an interpretation that is at best inaccurate and is frequently downright misleading.

However, it is what sells papers, magazines and advertising space. Until we have a public that have a strong basis in critical thinking and a high desire for more than a quick overview (be it sports, politics, science, whatever) and are willing to vote with their wallets, this is the only sort of journalism we will ever get. Sure there will be a few specialised publications that will attempt to maintain integrity in their field but they will continue to be read by only the very small sections of society that have a specific interest in that field.

I agree wholeheartedly with the OP's sentiment but fear it is not a cycling problem, it is a societal one. Unfortunately the old political truism applies here: "In a democracy, the people get the government the people deserve!".

 

[auscyclefan94]

The media generally doesn't like a happy ending or a happy story as they have more to write about and can base their stories on innunendo and rumour.

 

[hope_rides_again]

The media generally doesn't like a happy ending or a happy story as they have more to write about and can base their stories on innunendo and rumour.

Actually not true.

For the most part journalists are lazy. Especially for daily newspapers. News moves fast. There simply isn’t enough time to research articles or stories. Therefore to avoid litigation a journalist will simply take a press release and “lift” off quotes and comments - they are copyright free. In addition newspapers will just run stories from Associated Press or Reuters which for the most part are press releases also. No agency or newspaper will take the time to verify the translations from foreign languages. Especially for cycling articles.

There is also the other issue of access. Many people ask why wasn’t Tiger exposed earlier if he had so many women on the go? Within the press cores it was a well known fact about Tigers behaviour. However no journalist was ever going to run the story as a) it would have required research and b) if it turned out not to be true then Tiger would never speak to that “group” of publications again. That is a big deal. No newspaper is willing to risk being the one publication that Tiger didn’t speak to - not to mention the advertisers who could be "pulled" if they printed the story.

Armstrong is very much the same. He wouldn’t speak to various publications if they threatened to print stories of his alleged drug use albeit the French press. That hurt a lot of publications during the glory years. Cyclingnews is a good example of this not printing any of the Contador related stories from the Tour. They know there readership and don't want to hurt the cause from the Armstrong camp.

The hardest working journalist are those who work for tabloids. They are they only ones who actually leave the office and look for stories, rummage through peoples trash and ask the questions.

Cyclingnews is a agency. Its takes stories from other sources and prints them. To my knowledge there is no actual journalists at cyclingnews. They cut, copy and paste.

In Europe cyclingnews is mostly unknown and those who do know it considered it of a poor standard.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Actually not true.

For the most part journalists are lazy. Especially for daily newspapers. News moves fast. There simply isn’t enough time to research articles or stories. Therefore to avoid litigation a journalist will simply take a press release and “lift” off quotes and comments - they are copyright free. In addition newspapers will just run stories from Associated Press or Reuters which for the most part are press releases also. No agency or newspaper will take the time to verify the translations from foreign languages. Especially for cycling articles.

There is also the other issue of access. Many people ask why wasn’t Tiger exposed earlier if he had so many women on the go? Within the press cores it was a well known fact about Tigers behaviour. However no journalist was ever going to run the story as a) it would have required research and b) if it turned out not to be true then Tiger would never speak to that “group” of publications again. That is a big deal. No newspaper is willing to risk being the one publication that Tiger didn’t speak to - not to mention the advertisers who could be "pulled" if they printed the story.

Armstrong is very much the same. He wouldn’t speak to various publications if they threatened to print stories of his alleged drug use albeit the French press. That hurt a lot of publications during the glory years. Cyclingnews is a good example of this not printing any of the Contador related stories from the Tour. They know there readership and don't want to hurt the cause from the Armstrong camp.

The hardest working journalist are those who work for tabloids. They are they only ones who actually leave the office and look for stories, rummage through peoples trash and ask the questions.

Cyclingnews is a agency. Its takes stories from other sources and prints them. To my knowledge there is no actual journalists at cyclingnews. They cut, copy and paste.

In Europe cyclingnews is mostly unknown and those who do know it considered it of a poor standard.

do you think the media would like another big rider to test positive? - Yes
do you think the media would like the amrstrong v contador saga to keep going and get even more nastier? -Yes
do you think the media would like the UCI and ASO to have more trouble over the invites? - Of course

Bad news stories or stories of fighting will always sell well or will cause a lot of interest in the sport.

 

[lucybears]

There is also the other issue of access. Many people ask why wasn’t Tiger exposed earlier if he had so many women on the go? Within the press cores it was a well known fact about Tigers behaviour. However no journalist was ever going to run the story as a) it would have required research and b) if it turned out not to be true then Tiger would never speak to that “group” of publications again. That is a big deal. No newspaper is willing to risk being the one publication that Tiger didn’t speak to - not to mention the advertisers who could be "pulled" if they printed the story.

Armstrong is very much the same. He wouldn’t speak to various publications if they threatened to print stories of his alleged drug use albeit the French press. That hurt a lot of publications during the glory years. Cyclingnews is a good example of this not printing any of the Contador related stories from the Tour. They know there readership and don't want to hurt the cause from the Armstrong camp.

The bully with the most money and the biggest gun is the most powerful.


or rather
The team with the fattest cheque book and the best lawyers...

We shall appease them with articles like this

Why Bradley Wiggins’ Move to Team Sky is Good for the Sport

http://www.bikerumor.com/2009/12/14/why-bradley-wiggins-move-to-team-sky-is-good-for-the-sport/

 

[Anonymous]

Here's a fresh example that I hope will stay in 2009. I clicked on a link at Road Bike Action that promised a look a Radio Shack camp and Lance's bike. I don't know who "Zap" is. There is no disclaimer, if it is someone connected to the team. But after reading this, there's no doubt in my mind who they'll be rooting for in 2010. The quotes are from the author, and would seem appropriate for the team website. There was some decent information, but it had a whole cheerleader vibe to it - I looked to see if it was a paid advertisement instead of a news article.

Hold on to your hats kids, we are on the threshold of another fabulous year of racing. Until then, here's a bit more of what I saw at the RadioShack team camp.

You'd be hard pressed to find two other guys on the planet who have the Tour de France track record and base of knowledge that Lance and Johan Bruyneel have. It's obvious that they have a special relationship, one that will no doubt prove formidable once again when we roll into July.

First on the scene as a Discovery rider, Jani Brajkovic made the switch to Astana, and knowing a good thing when he sees it, he decided to follow Lance and Johan to RadioShack. Smart kid!

http://www.roadbikeaction.com/fly.aspx?layout=content&taxid=69&cid=2611

The question of obvious favoritism applies to cycling announcers as well. I told someone last summer that if Lance had pulled off to the side of the road for a natural break, Phil Liggett would have said that he "peed like a champion!" I respect Phil when Armstrong isn't in the race, but switch to Sean & David when he is.

About halfway through the Tour last year, MSNBC.com had an article explaining why Lance was still a mortal lock to win the Tour. Lance gets stronger in a three week race (we won't get into that), Contador bonked in a race, etc. I remember flaming the guy pretty good in the comments, but it doesn't matter, because he was paid for his evaluation, and coincidentally, he had a new book about Lance just coming out. I lost respect for the website as a news source that day.

Rupert Guinness did an interview with Lance, who was pushing his own book, a couple of weeks ago, and he posted the same incorrect Contador quote from July to make it seem reasonable that Armstrong was still slinging mud. The story was repeated here, and I e-mailed the Editor with the correct quote and the Reuters and BBC simultaneous translations. He agreed, and corrected the story.

But it all came down to the first snippet of bad translation that hit the wire service and went out in fifty languages the first day. I don't think its too much to ask to have a translation like that verified before it goes out to the world as truth. According to the media as a whole, Bradley Wiggins "went to Sky" more often than I went to the mailbox. Someone wanting to change teams can be a story, but the fact is, he didn't go to Sky in September, or October. I should have seen that headline once, when all parties concerned actually reached an agreement.

When I evaluate something, I like to use the "What would the world be like if everyone did it?" approach. What if writers only wrote positive stories about their favorite cyclist or team? What if no one made the effort to interview people, and to ask hard questions, but did the media equivalent of re-tweeting things they were spoon-fed, or posting their video and making a few comments?

Let me put this out there. If I tell people that the guy across the street said something, and he didn't, or I change the words to suit some agenda, I'm a liar. If people hear the lie, and change their treatment of him because of it, that's my fault. Every time a lie that originated with me is repeated, especially if I know it will happen, I'm a bigger liar. Misquoting someone is a lie. Responsible media should check their sources before repeating quotes, especially ones from translation. Reuters should have someone verify translations before giving a story to the world.

 

[SteveMedcroft]

...Cyclingnews is a agency. Its takes stories from other sources and prints them. To my knowledge there is no actual journalists at cyclingnews. They cut, copy and paste...

Cyclingnews employs a full-time editorial staff consisting of a Managing Editor, five production editors, two staff journalists and a network of freelance contributors including at least two journalists (Susan Westemeyer and Kirsten Robbins) who work for the site on almost a daily basis and are critical to it's mission as the daily news source for the sport of cycling.

 

[lucybears]

Cyclingnews employs a full-time editorial staff consisting of a Managing Editor, five production editors, two staff journalists and a network of freelance contributors including at least two journalists (Suan Westemeyer and Kirsten Robbins) who work for the site on almost a daily basis and are critical to it's mission as the daily news source for the sport of cycling.

Fair enough, hope_rides_again should have paid attention to his own words

For the most part journalists are lazy. Especially for daily newspapers. News moves fast. There simply isn’t enough time to research articles or stories. Therefore to avoid litigation a journalist will simply take a press release and “lift” off quotes and comments - they are copyright free. In addition newspapers will just run stories from Associated Press or Reuters which for the most part are press releases also. No agency or newspaper will take the time to verify the translations from foreign languages. Especially for cycling articles.

and checked here
http://www.cyclingnews.com/about

but

at least two journalists

in ratio to the number of Sales Managers ..... maybe I see where hope_rides_again is coming from when he posted

hope_rides_again
There is also the other issue of access. Many people ask why wasn’t Tiger exposed earlier if he had so many women on the go? Within the press cores it was a well known fact about Tigers behaviour. However no journalist was ever going to run the story as a) it would have required research and b) if it turned out not to be true then Tiger would never speak to that “group” of publications again. That is a big deal. No newspaper is willing to risk being the one publication that Tiger didn’t speak to - not to mention the advertisers who could be "pulled" if they printed the story.

Armstrong is very much the same. He wouldn’t speak to various publications if they threatened to print stories of his alleged drug use albeit the French press. That hurt a lot of publications during the glory years. Cyclingnews is a good example of this not printing any of the Contador related stories from the Tour. They know there readership and don't want to hurt the cause from the Armstrong camp.

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.examiner.com/x-19794-Bos...ance-Armstrong-and-teammates-for-doping-again

 

[afpm90]

http://www.examiner.com/x-19794-Bos...ance-Armstrong-and-teammates-for-doping-again

The first paragraph says it all. Disgusting.

"In 2009 Lance Armstrong came back to France with a new team and new tactics, but French anti-doping officials are up to their old tricks. The French police have been sniffing around Astana's trash like a suspicious bloodhound, desperate to find evidence for a doping case that will stick."

 

[B.Rasmussen]

The first paragraph says it all. Disgusting.

"In 2009 Lance Armstrong came back to France with a new team and new tactics, but French anti-doping officials are up to their old tricks. The French police have been sniffing around Astana's trash like a suspicious bloodhound, desperate to find evidence for a doping case that will stick."

I already posted this in another thread but will put it here as well:

Claire Lunardoni’s Experience

*
Freelance Writer
Demand Studios

(Writing and Editing industry)

July 2009 — Present (6 months)

Freelance sports and fitness writer for LiveStrong.com and eHow.com, Boston Triathlon Expert for the Boston Examiner.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/claire-lunardoni/15/86/935

 

[workingclasshero]

The first paragraph says it all. Disgusting.

"In 2009 Lance Armstrong came back to France with a new team and new tactics, but French anti-doping officials are up to their old tricks. The French police have been sniffing around Astana's trash like a suspicious bloodhound, desperate to find evidence for a doping case that will stick."

as a sport journalist i have to say that this paragraph is sickening

that's really really poor.

nice bit of digging by b. rasmussen above me which explains her position but even so, passing this off as journalism is seriously very very sad to the profession.

 

[Boston Triathlon Examiner]

Thank you

Hi everyone. This is Claire, writer of the Examiner article. First of all, I would like to thank everyone who's been spreading the link around and posting on the comments. Many of the commenters have said what I think needs to be said, and what I felt that I did not have enough concrete evidence to publish. My personal beliefs about Mr. Armstrong are much like many of yours, but I can't PROVE the guy's a rat. I wish that I had some news that I could break that *proved* that Armstrong is doping. However, the reason that I don't take him to the cleaners as many of you have, is that I have never seen any evidence that has stood up in a WADA hearing or a court of law. If you look closely at the wording of the article, I was very careful only to put any defense of Armstrong in indirect quotes from "Le Boss" himself. None of my own. That doesn't mean I agree with him, it just means I can't prove he's lying. Just like the investigators haven't been able to prove anything, (or Walsh or any of the others) despite all their trying. The point I was trying to make in the article was that for all their hard work, testing him a million times a year, "going through his trash" (getting injunctions to collect his medical supplies), and they STILL can't nail him. I mean, IF he's guilty (which he sure looks that way), then why can't they nail the guy??? You point me to the person who can definitively PROVE that he's lying, and I'd love to help get the word out that he's a rat. Until then, it's just personal opinion.

As far as me writing for LiveStrong... well it's true. Good sleuthing for all those who caught the connection. My articles have been published on LiveStrong, but I am not *employed* by LiveStrong and none of my articles are directly related to Mr. Armstrong himself. My paychecks don't even come from LiveStrong. I am a freelance writer for a company called Demand Studios, and one of their contracts is for LiveStrong. In the spirit of total transparency, I make about $50 per month directly through LiveStrong. If buying me off were that cheap, I really would be as bad as you all say I am.

I would like to put out there that if any of you hear of a definitive positive test by Lance Armstrong, I would love to let loose with a scathing article about him. In the meantime, however, an unfounded slandering article based on the works of others would display no more integrity than what commenters are accusing me of right now.

Finally, thanks for all the traffic. I'm laughing my way all the way to the bank.