Cyclingnews being used as a propaganda tool...and willingly...

Oct 25, 2010
434
0
0
Seems to me, lately...Cyclingnews is getting alot of the the first stories via doping...exclusive interviews aka armstrong, meetings at Doctor's gates, first comments from DS folk ect ect...whatever...that they are really being used to spread the word and willingly...doping is over aka 2006...lots of info being given, no follow ups but certainly making their money off this BS...I might be misreading the intention but it certainly seems suspect...seems abit too easy.
 
Oct 25, 2010
434
0
0
Master50 said:
Maybe it is that people are talking for a change?
sure...that is so I think...maybe you are right and that should just be it...but I think it is a double edged thing abit...follow ups might be insisted upon for access...I don't know but it sorta comes off that way...the whole thing comes off alot like festina scandel to me is at times all including the cleanup follow up...don't mean to be too cynical...just would hate to see a good site lose an opportunity in lieu of first stories...but then again I am no journo and don't know how it really works...so maybe, just an idea...that people talking alot for a change is a real opportunity...
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
The Gnome said:
...the whole thing comes off alot like festina scandel to me is at times all including the cleanup follow up...don't mean to be too cynical...just would hate to see a good site lose an opportunity in lieu of first stories...but then again I am no journo and don't know how it really works...
I know what you mean with the articles. They seem like propoganda because they have been nothing other than a platform for people to post their view.

In this cyclingnews is more simple reporting rather than anything investigative.

I don't know whether that is an editorial approach taken to ensue their access (and protect their product value because they have that access), or just a lack of journalists with the skills to be able to investigate deeper (not that it would take much to ask some hard questions).

But in terms of cyclingnews being one of the goto places for this, I think that's because it is the place to be to discuss doping in cycling. Other sites are better to discuss other issues, but for doping related issues, this is the best place on the internet and a place many people know about.
 
Mar 26, 2009
342
0
0
What's wrong with learning the point of view of people involved in cycling? Rather than look at an article like the one by JV as some sort of Cycling News propaganda I just see it as CN knowing many of us are interested in what JV has to say.

CN has always been about reporting, and not investigating. Of course some people will use that for their own propaganda, but this is not CN's fault. I honestly don't see evidence that CN is promoting a "doping ended in 2006" thing.
 
silverrocket said:
What's wrong with learning the point of view of people involved in cycling? Rather than look at an article like the one by JV as some sort of Cycling News propaganda I just see it as CN knowing many of us are interested in what JV has to say.

CN has always been about reporting, and not investigating. Of course some people will use that for their own propaganda, but this is not CN's fault. I honestly don't see evidence that CN is promoting a "doping ended in 2006" thing.
Agreed.

Add that: where the Clinic is the bastion of rational discourse on this topic (except for the sock puppets), reporting on doping aids awareness of the Clinic which can lead sincerely interested people to rational observations and conclusions.

Dave.
 
silverrocket said:
What's wrong with learning the point of view of people involved in cycling? Rather than look at an article like the one by JV as some sort of Cycling News propaganda I just see it as CN knowing many of us are interested in what JV has to say.

CN has always been about reporting, and not investigating. Of course some people will use that for their own propaganda, but this is not CN's fault. I honestly don't see evidence that CN is promoting a "doping ended in 2006" thing.
This x2. What is CN supposed to do? Drop bomb after bomb after bomb? After a while, no one in cycling would talk to them. Editorially, they do an excellent job walking the line.

In the past, I'd tell you to go to the interns at Velonews. Incredibly, they've had two, yes two(!) stories that were actually critical of the UCI and even the IOC. Prior to those stories, I'd say VN was your main source of doping propaganda.
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
If you think CN is a propaganda machine you don't venture far from their site which only puts you in a bad light, or you are someone wanting their stories to get more clicks for some marginal gains, internet - wise.
 
Aug 8, 2009
142
0
0
In defense of cycling news, they have turned "sitting at a computer and waiting for something to show up on google" into a highly refined skill.

They were among the first journalists to realize that anyone out pounding the pavement risks missing a key search result.

Surely people in the clinic can appreciate the kind of sacrifices they have made, and the number of cheetos they have consumed in this noble quest.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
I would suggest that posting articles like the one with Damsgaard posted today without fact checking it (read RR's post on that thread, everyone else says the blood sample taken was morning, and all of a sudden, now Damsgaard says it was after a stage) is irresponsible journalism.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS