- Jun 19, 2009
Overall I agree, because like most news outlets it has changed and evolved.rata de sentina said:As usual MJM hones in on CN and Benson in particular without much regard for the facts. While MJM is entirely correct to lambast cycling journalism for their collective failure quite why MJM targets CN while simultaneously nestling in the bosom of said organisation is mystifying. Petulantly attacking CNs rather innocuous performance while ignoring the execrable efforts of other cycling media is hard to fathom from a logical perspective.
Of course MJM has nothing to lose and can rant on and post threads about peoples head shape with absolutely no factual basis whatsoever and then climb on a high horse and criticise people for not doing something they are not employed to do. MJM has no idea what may or may have been peoples natural inclination or whether they were happy to lose their livelihood while MJM risked nothing.
I don’t recall any particularly pro-LA line from CN over the years and this contrasts quite markedly with many other cycling media who were active LA supporters and bashed his critics, whose obsequious reporting of LA was quite sickening. Surely these are far more worthy targets for the MJM ire.
Anyway the ‘notorious’ Clinic grew and prospered under the CN umbrella and I can’t imagine that made them popular in certain quarters. As far as I am concerned that is sufficient for me to excuse their ‘sins’ of omission.
But in CN there was a 'European Editor' called Tim Maloney, he conducted a number of fawning interviews with LA in (iirc) 2004.
In short, some publications were better than others, some journalists were shockingly naive and unprofessional while others were consistent and objective.