Bizarre Reporting by Cyclingnews

[131313]

Seriously, what the hell is up with this: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-witnesses-in-armstrong-case-unmasked

Yes, I realize that this is posted elsewhere, but I really do believe it deserves its own thread. I tend to give Cyclingnews.com a pretty wide berth. They get results up faster than anyone, and it's always been more of a "news hub" for re-reporting things rather than a journal that has a bunch of reporters digging up stuff.

That said, the above "article" is the absolute height of journalistic laziness. Yes, I realize that there are plenty of qualifiers in there, and there's even a question mark after the headline. Of course, the main headline is as follows: "Riders given six-month delayed ban by USADA". Um...really? According to whom?

Of course, there's a follow-up article with the facts being disputed, by why not check that stuff in the first place and include it in the article rather than print this as fact? It's pretty obvious the "source" is someone with limited or no actual knowledge, and that it's a contrived piece of media manipulation. So, why buy into it? How about a little bit of due diligence rather than just regurgitating a tabloid press release? I expect this from Velonews. From CN I expected better.

 

[Dr.Sahl]

I think it deserves to stay under the Pharmstrong thread... This is Pharmstrongs try to ruin TDF... a silly and stupid thing to leak and the newspaper is even more stupid to run this without any sources, distastefull im0.

 

[131313]

I think it deserves to stay under the Pharmstrong thread... This is Pharmstrongs try to ruin TDF... a silly and stupid thing to leak and the newspaper is even more stupid to run this without any sources, distastefull im0.

I think the bigger issue here is the news media in general, which is why I didn't want to drag the Armstrong/USADA thread offtrack. When the various threads come up about "who is to blame for doping in sport", I think the press generally gets more of a free pass than it should. This is just the latest example.

I understand that the cycling press in general is faced with a conundrum of both needing access, promoting the sport (and itself) while also "reporting". So, I think the bigger failing is with mainstream media outlets more than the cycling press. That said, the CN piece is simply ridiculous, and frankly a bit embarrassing.

Why is it that so many of the basic lies are never confronted by the press:

-"I've been tested 500 times". He must have been tested 200 times since his comeback, 'cause he was claiming 300 just a couple of years ago..."

-"I've never failed a test". Not true

-"this is a witch hunt". How about mentioning that most of the other athletes from that period were already sanctioned at one point or another.

-"I'm being selectively prosecuted because I'm famous". How about showing a list of sanctioned athletes, which clearly refutes this claim...

Now it's 'these guys are being given token sentences'. Um...ok...if you really know that, why did they only mention the riders who DQ'd themselves from the Olympic selection and hence are in the public domain? Surely they aren't the only ones. Answer: because the "inside source" doesn't actually have any information.

So, in general I'm just tired of a lazy press being part of the problem. And that includes CN, sorry to say.

Basically, I'm just wondering why press agencies will print things that are fed to them without asking the simplest of questions.

 

[nickel999]

I think its also fueld by the current event that is gong on: The TDF

If we were in December/January we would be in a snooze fest with this stuff= 1 thread on the forums.

 

[hiero2]

+1. I have to agree w/ 131313. While I think it would be important to cover the fact that this was released as news this morning - I think the title of the article is misleading and irresponsible.

I also find it somewhat disrespectful for the riders allegedly involved. If they did testify, I think we can reasonably assume they are currently riding clean. If they are riding clean - they should be left to ride and race in relative peace. Bother them when the tour is over if you wish, but not in the heat of competition.

I also agree that this is worthy of its own thread. This is a separate topic from the allegations themselves. But, I doubt that the thread will stay separate. We will see.

 

[ChrisE]

And when I read this today I was just thinking how pleasant of a conversation 131313 and I would have had about those riders being sanctioned properly by USADA.

There is no such thing as a competent media in modern times. We just have stenographers, repeating BS to maintain access. "We report, you decide". Yep.

 

[ElChingon]

131313, you made laugh, expecting more from CN

I'm surprised some of the better threads haven't been copied over as stories, or have they ?

 

[silverrocket]

One thing that bothers me is that right next to the article is the "usual" options for readers to vote as to whether they "like" the article or not. It makes me think that the quality and content of their reporting is being directed by who is clicking the "like" button. For example, if Lance Armstrong fans were able to inflate the popularity by "liking" pro-Armstrong articles, would CN respond by tilting their reporting in favour of "Armstrong is Innocent" articles? I think we should be delivered the balanced truth, regardless of whether people like it or not.

 

[pelodee]

...I'm just tired of a lazy press being part of the problem. And that includes CN...

This is nearly going all Network and I completely agree

 

[pelodee]

*Search Engine Optimisation
*quotes-for-quotes'-sake

 

[Dr.Sahl]

I think the bigger issue here is the news media in general, which is why I didn't want to drag the Armstrong/USADA thread offtrack. When the various threads come up about "who is to blame for doping in sport", I think the press generally gets more of a free pass than it should. This is just the latest example.

I understand that the cycling press in general is faced with a conundrum of both needing access, promoting the sport (and itself) while also "reporting". So, I think the bigger failing is with mainstream media outlets more than the cycling press. That said, the CN piece is simply ridiculous, and frankly a bit embarrassing.

Why is it that so many of the basic lies are never confronted by the press:

-"I've been tested 500 times". He must have been tested 200 times since his comeback, 'cause he was claiming 300 just a couple of years ago..."

-"I've never failed a test". Not true

-"this is a witch hunt". How about mentioning that most of the other athletes from that period were already sanctioned at one point or another.

-"I'm being selectively prosecuted because I'm famous". How about showing a list of sanctioned athletes, which clearly refutes this claim...

Now it's 'these guys are being given token sentences'. Um...ok...if you really know that, why did they only mention the riders who DQ'd themselves from the Olympic selection and hence are in the public domain? Surely they aren't the only ones. Answer: because the "inside source" doesn't actually have any information.

So, in general I'm just tired of a lazy press being part of the problem. And that includes CN, sorry to say.

Basically, I'm just wondering why press agencies will print things that are fed to them without asking the simplest of questions.

I agree that the medie is to blame aswell for some of it, but! where I come from, some of them actually ask the hard questions and even joke with the Armstrong quotes you stated, they also look at both sides of the coin...

I think some of the reason for the medie, might be because of the image they wanna show, they don't want a dirty image and they don't want to offend anyone (ohh noes what if they wont talk to us next time) too many play the "mr. nice guy"

Still, I know you don't want this to be a Armstrong thread, but he is a part of the blame and reason for the medie reports in this case.


Personaly, I think CN have some good reporting at times and vice versa, its pretty normal.

 

[Maxiton]

Seriously, what the hell is up with this: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-witnesses-in-armstrong-case-unmasked

Yes, I realize that this is posted elsewhere, but I really do believe it deserves its own thread. I tend to give Cyclingnews.com a pretty wide berth. They get results up faster than anyone, and it's always been more of a "news hub" for re-reporting things rather than a journal that has a bunch of reporters digging up stuff.

That said, the above "article" is the absolute height of journalistic laziness. Yes, I realize that there are plenty of qualifiers in there, and there's even a question mark after the headline. Of course, the main headline is as follows: "Riders given six-month delayed ban by USADA". Um...really? According to whom?

Of course, there's a follow-up article with the facts being disputed, by why not check that stuff in the first place and include it in the article rather than print this as fact? It's pretty obvious the "source" is someone with limited or no actual knowledge, and that it's a contrived piece of media manipulation. So, why buy into it? How about a little bit of due diligence rather than just regurgitating a tabloid press release? I expect this from Velonews. From CN I expected better.

I was thinking pretty much the same as you. I remember when I first saw the headline I thought, Wow! so they've released the names. Then I read the article and thought, Wait a sec, this doesn't make sense, where are the rest of the names? Then I started reading the denials from the named parties and began to realize what must have happened: LA and company were shaking the tree to see what might fall out.

That trick only works if editors are cooperative. It wouldn't do for us to speculate about why they might be cooperative; it's enough for us to notice that they have been.

As readers, our response to this can take several forms. One thing we might do is go in together on several copies of this, for shipment to Cyclingnews offices:



(You'll note that the Kindle edition is only $9.99.)

It might be more fun, though, to simply write our own press releases and arrange our own leaks. After all, as long time cycling fans we can justifiably claim to be "close to the case" - of course, some of us are closer than others.

What say you?


/jk

 

[sniper]

CN still isn't showing any of the courage and responsibility one might have hoped for in these times.
Still giving uncritical air and publicity to obvious PED-driven projects such as the Kazachan dream team...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gallery-kazakhstans-dream-team-presented-in-astana

understandable, but disappointing.

 

[Cloxxki]

CN still isn't showing any of the courage and responsibility one might have hoped for in these times.
Still giving uncritical air and publicity to obvious PED-driven projects such as the Kazachan dream team...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gallery-kazakhstans-dream-team-presented-in-astana

understandable, but disappointing.

It's a for-profit outlet. What do you expect?
Truth and sense of reality however hard to find are served free of charge, therefor cannot be sold. Values are not valued in this time and age, especially not in this leisure hobby. Blame society. Blame human nature.
Don't forget under which circumstances CN last switched ownership. CN is not the worst by any means, but also not leading the way of old fashioned sincere reporting as it could or should. This tiny outlaw corner of the website is operating on itself, in spite of its host.

 

[sniper]

It's a for-profit outlet. What do you expect?
Truth and sense of reality however hard to find are served free of charge, therefor cannot be sold. Values are not valued in this time and age, especially not in this leisure hobby. Blame society. Blame human nature.
Don't forget under which circumstances CN last switched ownership. CN is not the worst by any means, but also not leading the way of old fashioned sincere reporting as it could or should. This tiny outlaw corner of the website is operating on itself, in spite of its host.

agreed.
certainly not unexpected.
and of course there are worlds between what I expect and what I hope for.

in any case, the story of Vino's Dream Team beautifully shows where the problem lies: using PEDs still pays off. The press will continue to focus on the heroism, not on the cheating. The guy got caught, ffs, but is nonetheless capable of finding sponsors eager to get some publicity.

 

[sniper]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ferrari-denies-doping-armstrong

Although a 2005 L’Équipe investigation revealed that Armstrong’s samples from the 1999 Tour de France contained EPO and the UCI acknowledged that he returned a “suspect sample” at the 2001 Tour de Suisse, Armstrong never formally failed a doping control during his career.

really?

 

[cineteq]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ferrari-denies-doping-armstrong

really?

If we didn't know he was lying, this gives it away.

"So, either he was clean – and in my opinion, he was clean and he says he was clean – or the tests are not powerful,” Ferrari added, before laughing: “Or the UCI was corrupt."