Dear Wiggo, the Paul Foot awards are given out in the UK for investigative journalism each year.
The
Paul Foot awards tend to blow out of the water the idea that because CN is a 'small' website it can't do 'investigative journalism'.
Looking at the awards you see that yes, the big newspapers do lead the charge, but time and time again, you see that local newspapers, or specialist magazines have led the way on investigating the breaking stories.
It is entirely possible for small circulation websites/magazines to 'do' investigation.
The reason why CN doesn't is threefold and all of them basically fall at the feet of Dan Benson.
CN relies upon churnalism for its materials and hits. It doesn't matter about the quality of a story - it is about volume. Stories with a short turn around time (ie a quick translation of a story from Germany) and getting out it out first is central to the CN model. It relies on rehashing PR releases from the teams - and milking the teams for material.
With whole website model based on this they can and won't run the risk of getting themselves ostracised by the teams that they depend upon for material.
Could you imagine how ****ed CN would be if the teams actually cut them off and stopped feeding them stories.
This model means that you don't need to bother with hiring skilled journalists. You can go for people who are cheap and low skilled. You don't need a skilled staff who are adept at going out and getting a story.
CN can't do investigative work because frankly the people employed here don't have the skills to do it. While you can take peds and turn a donkey into a race horse in cycling, nothing is going to make Friebe etc good journalists.
Time and time again Benson and others miss chances. I think that Benson's attitude and failure is best summed up when it comes to how he deals with Armstrong. He can be a big man twitter trolling him, but when it came to interviewing him, Benson crumbled and gave a piece that tossed softball question after softball question at the Uniballer. Where was big man anti-doping Benson there? No where to be seen. Instead like a willing poodle, Benson rolled over in return for Armstrong tickling his tummy.
I don't actually think that Benson or his colleagues actually really care about doping in cycling. Omertists? Yes, without a doubt, (see the Ulrich comments) and
Ketmanists too when it comes to wanting clean racing. Anti-doping, only because they 'have to be'. A little bit of lipservice to anti-doping but certainly nothing like a concerted push. Benson no doubt loves the good life, the freebies and travelling the world to various inconsequential races. Trip to Argentina in the middle of a minging UK winter - oh if I must. Its pretty clear that the personal relationship with the teams and riders prevents Benson and others from having an objective relationship with their subject.
It's not just the riders who have failed the fans, its not just the UCI that is morally compromised and corrupt from top to bottom, it isn't just national feds that are unaccountable, irresponsible and unwilling to take their share of blame and responsibility its the media too.
Cycling can't move on, for as long as the the old guard on the bikes and off the bikes remain in place. Having failed to act with any integrity in the Armstrong years, we are some how expected to believe that they'll act with integrity now. We complain about McQuaid staying in position because he is so morally compromised, we complain about Riis staying around because he is so old skool, and yet, somehow, Dan Benson and CN (the same people who fawned over Armstrong for years) are the same people to give us credible post-Armstrong cycling coverage.