Shouldn't Sunday Times Be Rehiring Kimmage?

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

Overall I agree, because like most news outlets it has changed and evolved.

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.

 

[Benotti69]

The problem is that there isn't often some scandal to report - they're generally once a career stories. The vast majority of the sports pages is just reporting the actual sport. So regardless of how crusading a journalist may want to be, most of the time he has to do the bog standard reporting, otherwise there's nothing to put in the paper. 90% of any job is producing the mundane.

David Walsh understands this and most weeks he is reporting on the actual playing of sport (mostly rugby). Kimmage on the other hand seems to think this is beneath him and thinks the paper exists as a platform for his views. By his own admission he wasn't producing usable copy.

That's why one is the paper's Chief Sports Writer and the other got laid off.

What bollixs.

90% of papers is not mundane othersie they would've be gone long ago.

Kimmage did hardly any cycling for the ST. His choice.

Walsh covers everything, golf, football, rugby, cycling the lot.

Kimmage was specialising in interviews for the ST and at 1 stage wrting Faldos biography and it was being serialised in the ST.

You are way off the mark.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Unless that administrator is a cycling administrator. Haven't seen much beating down of their doors. The UCI should also face the "liar or idiot?" question in my view. Either you have no control over your sport (so apologise and resign) or you let it go on knowingly (so apologise and resign). I seriously wish more people in positions of power or responsibility were just asked that question more often when stuff goes wrong.

If you think about any other field - whenever there is a scandal the approach of the media is to call for the head of the senior person on a platter. In cycling despite scandal after scandal the calls for McQuaid etc to go are remarkably mute from the media.

Even looking at say football - look at the calls for Blatter to go.

In pretty much every other field - when there is a scandal and blame to go around the demand from the media is for heads to roll. And in many cases rightly so.

The one group that never faces up to its own failings is the media.

Benson's 'it was before my time' argument would be acceptable if we were getting more serious journalism and there was a clear attempt to have a more dispassionate and objective relationship with the teams/riders/authorities. This appeared to be what Benson was promising, but other than asking a few wishy washy questions of Sky, where has the critical coverage been. Trolling people on twitter is not serious journalism.

Secondly, Benson's argument doesn't take into account the things that have happened on his watch - such as the hatchet-job on Landis, the general approach when dealing with doped riders being given a free pass to expand on their excuses for their failed tests etc. Things for which he was responsible and for which he should take responsibility.

Thirdly, it isn't as if his staff is completely new and none of them were involved during the Armstrong years. It isn't as if they weren't involved in the early days of the forum where so much as mentioning Armstrong and drugs got you banned. Those who were here - were either naive, true believers or willing liars, all of which is why they should go.

Finally, it isn't as if there has been any change in CN's approach to reporting in general - it is still the same high volume churnalism, which is dependent upon maintaining good relations with the riders/teams to supply you with press releases and interviews that you can dress up as news. With model like that there is absolutely no room for objectivity, or serious analysis.

CN is a lot like the sport it covers. There is a scandal, they mutter a few things about how things are going to change, and then move on without changing at all, other than a new line about 'no doping since 2006' which for CN is 'no soft coverage of Armstrong since 2009'.

The bottomline is - would CN be a better publication with Kimmage - yes it would. Would CN be a worse publication without Benson, Friebe, Westemeyer, Weislo, Aubrey etc - no it wouldn't. If it is an issue of money and allocation of resources then CN should be getting rid of the deadwood and spending the money on better reporters.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Journalism

If you think about any other field - whenever there is a scandal the approach of the media is to call for the head of the senior person on a platter. In cycling despite scandal after scandal the calls for McQuaid etc to go are remarkably mute from the media.

Even looking at say football - look at the calls for Blatter to go.

In pretty much every other field - when there is a scandal and blame to go around the demand from the media is for heads to roll. And in many cases rightly so.

The one group that never faces up to its own failings is the media.

Benson's 'it was before my time' argument would be acceptable if we were getting more serious journalism and there was a clear attempt to have a more dispassionate and objective relationship with the teams/riders/authorities. This appeared to be what Benson was promising, but other than asking a few wishy washy questions of Sky, where has the critical coverage been. Trolling people on twitter is not serious journalism.

Secondly, Benson's argument doesn't take into account the things that have happened on his watch - such as the hatchet-job on Landis, the general approach when dealing with doped riders being given a free pass to expand on their excuses for their failed tests etc. Things for which he was responsible and for which he should take responsibility.

Thirdly, it isn't as if his staff is completely new and none of them were involved during the Armstrong years. It isn't as if they weren't involved in the early days of the forum where so much as mentioning Armstrong and drugs got you banned. Those who were here - were either naive, true believers or willing liars, all of which is why they should go.

Finally, it isn't as if there has been any change in CN's approach to reporting in general - it is still the same high volume churnalism, which is dependent upon maintaining good relations with the riders/teams to supply you with press releases and interviews that you can dress up as news. With model like that there is absolutely no room for objectivity, or serious analysis.

CN is a lot like the sport it covers. There is a scandal, they mutter a few things about how things are going to change, and then move on without changing at all, other than a new line about 'no doping since 2006' which for CN is 'no soft coverage of Armstrong since 2009'.

The bottomline is - would CN be a better publication with Kimmage - yes it would. Would CN be a worse publication without Benson, Friebe, Westemeyer, Weislo, Aubrey etc - no it wouldn't. If it is an issue of money and allocation of resources then CN should be getting rid of the deadwood and spending the money on better reporters.

Well Said Mrs M. I totally agree.
Cycling News needs to step up !! I only read it for the Heads Up and then go searching online for the REAL news reports that actually have some depth.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If you think about any other field - whenever there is a scandal the approach of the media is to call for the head of the senior person on a platter. In cycling despite scandal after scandal the calls for McQuaid etc to go are remarkably mute from the media.

Even looking at say football - look at the calls for Blatter to go.

In pretty much every other field - when there is a scandal and blame to go around the demand from the media is for heads to roll. And in many cases rightly so.

Can you give some examples of this, because it does not appear to ring true.

There have been calls for McQuaid to go, a recent example and widely reported was LeMonds brilliant post on facebook.

I am sure there have been calls for Blatter to go, but he is still there. I dont think there is any difference between they way either of them are treated, and their scorn or the media.

The one group that never faces up to its own failings is the media.

Benson's 'it was before my time' argument would be acceptable if we were getting more serious journalism and there was a clear attempt to have a more dispassionate and objective relationship with the teams/riders/authorities. This appeared to be what Benson was promising, but other than asking a few wishy washy questions of Sky, where has the critical coverage been. Trolling people on twitter is not serious journalism.

Secondly, Benson's argument doesn't take into account the things that have happened on his watch - such as the hatchet-job on Landis, the general approach when dealing with doped riders being given a free pass to expand on their excuses for their failed tests etc. Things for which he was responsible and for which he should take responsibility.

Thirdly, it isn't as if his staff is completely new and none of them were involved during the Armstrong years. It isn't as if they weren't involved in the early days of the forum where so much as mentioning Armstrong and drugs got you banned. Those who were here - were either naive, true believers or willing liars, all of which is why they should go.

Finally, it isn't as if there has been any change in CN's approach to reporting in general - it is still the same high volume churnalism, which is dependent upon maintaining good relations with the riders/teams to supply you with press releases and interviews that you can dress up as news. With model like that there is absolutely no room for objectivity, or serious analysis.

CN is a lot like the sport it covers. There is a scandal, they mutter a few things about how things are going to change, and then move on without changing at all, other than a new line about 'no doping since 2006' which for CN is 'no soft coverage of Armstrong since 2009'.

This appears nothing more than some personal rant against CN.

But i have tried to extract one point that you made, can you explain what you define as 'serious journalism'?

The bottomline is - would CN be a better publication with Kimmage - yes it would. Would CN be a worse publication without Benson, Friebe, Westemeyer, Weislo, Aubrey etc - no it wouldn't. If it is an issue of money and allocation of resources then CN should be getting rid of the deadwood and spending the money on better reporters.

Interesting question - and it would compliment the site. But Pks better contribution would be as an occasional contributor.

But it is called Cyclingnews for a reason. It gathers all the news from around the world and puts it in one place so geeks like me can be up to date about the sport.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

If you actually want to discuss the media then fine, but if you are just in one of your 'I'm going to get hung up on sentences' moods then spare me.

However, if you are being serious.

Plenty of op eds and critical articles about Blatter across the media. Yes he is still there but there is, was and remains vocal opposition to him.

How many critical op ed pieces of the UCI and their conduct over their conduct with regard to doping have their been from CN and elsewhere? I don't recall any, maybe I've missed Benson's article calling for reform of the UCI, the national federations etc.

Does it achieve anything - sometimes yes, sometimes no. It does signal independence by the media, something the cycling media has yet to show. Is the media in general good on such matters - no, is it better than the cycling media - yes.

Serious journalism - following up stories that present themselves, investigating and reporting stories - hear a rumour - investigate it if there is something there, report it. Instead of jetting off to Argentina to suck up to some riders, why not go to Holland and try to talk to some former Rabobank riders about Leinders, or why not head off to Spain and try to talk to Manzano etc as the OP trial is kicking off. Loosening the dependency on the teams.

If you want all the cycling news then why not just set up a google news feed? I also question whether the press launch of the new kit for team X, or a photo shoot with Team Y at their winter training camp is really news. As has been argued before, CN, VN etc are less interested in quality but quantity and getting the 'story' out their first ahead of the other. This is a pretty insular news model - it also makes CN very dependent upon the teams, the UCI etc for 'news' aka press releases. So you have a model which is dependent rather than independent.

You see this as me having something against CN, it isn't. There is a need for a more critical cycling media. There is a need for more independence between the media, riders/teams/authorities. The specialist media in the Armstrong and post Armstrong years failed.

CN in its present form could be so much better, a better CN and cycling media in general that is more critical is IMO a vital component in trying to prevent the next Armstrong from becoming Armstrong. (Just as pretty much everything in the sport needs radical reform). However, I don't think Benson, the present journalistic model, or the current staff are the people to make CN better. I think that they are too tainted and don't have the necessary skills, intellect or ability to make CN into a genuinely independent, free thinking and critical website, which both 'provides all the cycling news' and also a critical investigative voice for the sport.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If you actually want to discuss the media then fine, but if you are just in one of your 'I'm going to get hung up on sentences' moods then spare me.

However, if you are being serious.

I am going stop you right here.

I do wish to discuss the media, and their role, I agree with your general complaints, but I don't understand your specifics. Which is why I question them.

So,yes - I am going to read what you write. If there are inconsistencies in your argument, I will highlight them.
And you can be assured I will ask you to explain them and I will ask you for specifics or examples if I don't understand or agree with any point that you raise.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Plenty of op eds and critical articles about Blatter across the media. Yes he is still there but there is, was and remains vocal opposition to him.

How many critical op ed pieces of the UCI and their conduct over their conduct with regard to doping have their been from CN and elsewhere? I don't recall any, maybe I've missed Benson's article calling for reform of the UCI, the national federations etc.

Does it achieve anything - sometimes yes, sometimes no. It does signal independence by the media, something the cycling media has yet to show. Is the media in general good on such matters - no, is it better than the cycling media - yes.

You use words like "plenty" regarding Blatter - seriously, where & when were these articles?

Doing a quick search, here is a piece by Benson on Verbruggen, where DB gets blasted by HV.

Not an op ed - in fact its probably better as he asked HV direct questions.

Serious journalism - following up stories that present themselves, investigating and reporting stories - hear a rumour - investigate it if there is something there, report it. Instead of jetting off to Argentina to suck up to some riders, why not go to Holland and try to talk to some former Rabobank riders about Leinders, or why not head off to Spain and try to talk to Manzano etc as the OP trial is kicking off. Loosening the dependency on the teams.

If you want all the cycling news then why not just set up a google news feed? I also question whether the press launch of the new kit for team X, or a photo shoot with Team Y at their winter training camp is really news. As has been argued before, CN, VN etc are less interested in quality but quantity and getting the 'story' out their first ahead of the other. This is a pretty insular news model - it also makes CN very dependent upon the teams, the UCI etc for 'news' aka press releases. So you have a model which is dependent rather than independent.

You see this as me having something against CN, it isn't. There is a need for a more critical cycling media. There is a need for more independence between the media, riders/teams/authorities. The specialist media in the Armstrong and post Armstrong years failed.

CN in its present form could be so much better, a better CN and cycling media in general that is more critical is IMO a vital component in trying to prevent the next Armstrong from becoming Armstrong. (Just as pretty much everything in the sport needs radical reform). However, I don't think Benson, the present journalistic model, or the current staff are the people to make CN better. I think that they are too tainted and don't have the necessary skills, intellect or ability to make CN into a genuinely independent, free thinking and critical website, which both 'provides all the cycling news' and also a critical investigative voice for the sport.

2 things here.

Yes, I want cycling news - and I want it all in one place, so I am not going to rss a bunch of different feeds for that.
I do want to know about pre-season events - I am a cycling fan, I want to know what happened Boonens elbow and how long he is out for.
Actully, I don't even want opinion. Just the information or facts.

As for your definition of serious journalism - I broadly agree, but following up on every rumour? In cycling?

And I cannot think of any publication (let alone cycling) that can afford to send reporters off 'investigating'. Even Walsh and other journos have to do much of their work on their own time.

As to the blue - that seems to contradict you saying "You see this as me having something against CN"

 

[spiaggia]

Well Said Mrs M. I totally agree.

Yes. What Kim Deal says.