The Article: WSJ - reopened!

[Anonymous]

OK, you've named two. Liggett and Sherwen are TV commentators, not journalists -- any more than Bob Roll Al Trautwig are journalists.

Strickland, I have to say I don't know about. Has he done anything other than write for Bicycling? But I'll give you him.

Now name two more.

Ligget and sherwen use the media to put across their views and lead public opinion. they are journalilsts. NOt very good ones, but journalists nonetheless

bill strickland wrote this pile of twaddle
http://www.oregonlive.com/books/index.ssf/2010/06/nonfiction_review_tour_de_lanc.html
and writes articles where he constantly uses the line "while researching my book.. blah blah blah"

 

[filipo]

Ligget and sherwen use the media to put across their views and lead public opinion. they are journalilsts. NOt very good ones, but journalists nonetheless

bill strickland wrote this pile of twaddle
http://www.oregonlive.com/books/index.ssf/2010/06/nonfiction_review_tour_de_lanc.html
and writes articles where he constantly uses the line "while researching my book.. blah blah blah"

Sorry, but using the media to put across one's views does not a journalist make. If that's your definition, well -- maybe things are different in your English besides crisps and fags.
If that were the criterion, Obama is a journalist. Hell, Lance Armstrong is a journalist.
Writing something public doesn't make you a journalist, either. Richard Simmons wrote a book -- does that make him a journalist?

 

[Mambo95]

OK, you've named two. Liggett and Sherwen are TV commentators, not journalists -- any more than Bob Roll Al Trautwig are journalists.

Phil Liggett was the Daily Telegraph's cycling correspondent until 2007 at least. Prior to that he was Cycle Sport's International editor. He's been a journalist for about 40 years.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

.....

Wow, is that the time, BPC.

 

[filipo]

Phil Liggett was the Daily Telegraph's cycling correspondent until 2007 at least. Prior to that he was Cycle Sport's International editor. He's been a journalist for about 40 years.

Was this before, after, or while he was a TV announcer? What were the demands of his Telegraph position? Calling the races? Reporting on cycling news? Conducting interviews?
What was his background prior to that position? Was it in biking? Or in writing?
In other words, what were the qualities that led the Telegraph to hire him?

 

[Anonymous]

Was this before, after, or while he was a TV announcer? What were the demands of his Telegraph position? Calling the races? Reporting on cycling news? Conducting interviews?
What was his background prior to that position? Was it in biking? Or in writing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Liggett

wikipedia says he is a commentator and journalist so it must be true!

and heres a list of cycling journalists from wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cycling_journalists

sherwen, ligget, fotheringham all listed.

 

[Cobblestones]

How many paid Public Strategies douches pollute this thread?

 

[Anonymous]

How many paid Public Strategies douches pollute this thread?

These are the unpaid ones. Its 9pm now in Texas, the paid ones are all tucked up in bed, they have school in the morning.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Would never consider it superior. Just different.



124 posts in 10 months? = "every post"?? Call me confused (most people do).

Progessor's post accurately described the thread. I do not see anyone who disagreed.

joe - I appreciate your comments but the only person I saw agree/disagree with 'Progressors' comments was yourself.

'goober' started making some comment but then said "self proclaimed Lance haters" (doesn't mention who they are) and then mentioned some have 'apparently' fallen in to an "abyss" (doesn't mention who they are) - so I am not sure whether they were agreeing or disagreeing.

But since you asked...

This thread has just got less and less readable. Wait and see, if there is anything to see, pointless speculation all mixed up with obsessive and fairly warped desire to see LA destroyed mixed with fantasy and of course the usual unwarranted flaming and abuse to those who won't tow the party line I suspect it's pointless to observe that someone who disagrees with you on in internet forum is not the definition of a troll, nor is it the definition of mentally ill or deficient.

And all this for an article that has yet to make an appearance - and may not do.

:bangs head on keyboard:

....I would have to disagree.

While I agree with the sentiments on the (or any) article - but why the reference to one side? I did not read anyone calling 'progressor' "mentally ill, deficient or a troll".
Couldn't their post be called "unwarranted flaming" that they appear to be against?

 

[filipo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Liggett

wikipedia says he is a commentator and journalist so it must be true!

and heres a list of cycling journalists from wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cycling_journalists

sherwen, ligget, fotheringham all listed.

No offense, but -- wikipedia? Really?

If "most journalists (of every stripe)"* would sell their souls for access, surely you can find just a couple more than the abovementioned fools, no?

*- yes, I realize these were not your words, but you were answering that question.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No offense, but -- wikipedia? Really?

If "most journalists (of every stripe)"* would sell their souls for access, surely you can find just a couple more than the abovementioned fools, no?

*- yes, I realize these were not your words, but you were answering that question.

Phil & Paul in their role on Versus are not technically journalists - however they are 'commentators' and should be impartial and objective.

If you are requiring 2 'journalists' then John Wilcockson (editor of Velonews) and Sally Jenkins (Washington Post) who wrote both of Lance's books.

 

[filipo]

Phil & Paul in their role on Versus are not technically journalists - however they are 'commentators' and should be impartial and objective.

If you are requiring 2 'journalists' then John Wilcockson (editor of Velonews) and Sally Jenkins (Washington Post) who wrote both of Lance's books.

On your first point, I disagree completely. Their whole point as commentators should be to get psychologically and emotionally involved. Otherwise, why not just speak in monotone, tell us who's racing, and enough with the suitcases full of pedals turning in a certain Mr. Lance Armstrong. At any rate, they're not journalists.

On your second point, I'll admit I also don't know either Wilcockson's non-VN background or Jenkins's non-Lance-related stuff. Is she a columnist, or a reporter?

At any rate, my argument is simply that the claim that "most journalists" would sell their souls for access. Would a lot of them? Sure. "Most"? No way.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

On your first point, I disagree completely. Their whole point as commentators should be to get psychologically and emotionally involved. Otherwise, why not just speak in monotone, tell us who's racing, and enough with the suitcases full of pedals turning in a certain Mr. Lance Armstrong. At any rate, they're not journalists.

On your second point, I'll admit I also don't know either Wilcockson's non-VN background or Jenkins's non-Lance-related stuff. Is she a columnist, or a reporter?

At any rate, my argument is simply that the claim that "most journalists" would sell their souls for access. Would a lot of them? Sure. "Most"? No way.

On the first point - "Their whole point as commentators should be to get psychologically and emotionally involved", on the sport I would agree, but not when it is all centered on one rider.

On the second point - let me turn it the other way (its a lot quicker) - from 'LeTour' webpage,of the "2,500 journalists, photographers, cameramen and consultants" how many ask Lance hard questions on doping?

 

[Berzin]

On your first point, I disagree completely. Their whole point as commentators should be to get psychologically and emotionally involved. Otherwise, why not just speak in monotone, tell us who's racing, and enough with the suitcases full of pedals turning in a certain Mr. Lance Armstrong. At any rate, they're not journalists.

Let me put it to you this way-I've been purchasing WCP vidoes and pretty much owned all of them all from when they began producing them until the early 2000's.

Phil Liggett WAS the voice of cycling. His commentary was always enthusiastic but fair, even during the years when Miguel Indurain was dominating the Tour.

Having one rider dominate the most important cycling race of the calendar will always get boring after a while. But when Armstrong rolled on the scene Liggett and his rodeo clown Paul Sherwen went absolutely overboard with their man-crush. It affected the commentary to the point where they will never recover their standing in the business. And the last straw was adding Bob Roll for comedy relief. He's the worst I've ever seen.

Roll is so bad he makes David Duffield sound like Alistair Cooke. And on top of that he's another unrepentant fanboy, making statements like "We all know Lance Armstrong can recover day to day like no other cyclist in the world". He said this at the tail end of last year's Tour, pronouncing that with another year under his belt Armstrong will come back like his old self.

They go through their little dance as if it is an absolute impossibility that what made Lance a Tour winner wasn't dope-it had to have been his diet, training, attention to detail and the "fact" (ahem) that he worked harder and wanted to win more than any other cyclist.

This year should put paid to that notion, because if he is hitting his power numbers from the good ol' days it's because he's doping just like before. This "comeback" isn't a resurgence or a metamorphosis. It is the confirmation of what made him a Tour winner in the first place-Dr. Ferarri and his bags of dope.

 

[filipo]

On the first point - "Their whole point as commentators should be to get psychologically and emotionally involved", on the sport I would agree, but not when it is all centered on one rider.

On the second point - let me turn it the other way (its a lot quicker) - from 'LeTour' webpage,of the "2,500 journalists, photographers, cameramen and consultants" how many ask Lance hard questions on doping?

How about this one: What's your definition of journalist?
Of those 2,500 journalists, how many are journalists as you or I define them, and how many are paid semi-cheerleaders with no journalistic training or background? Of that smaller number, how many of those have as their directive to write about doping rather than write about, say, the race itself? A sports reporter doesn't necessarily have the skills to write about doping or fraud or international intrigue, and his paper could very well have directed his focus elsewhere.
Of that smaller number, I'd bet that a fair number of them will be asking hard questions at this year's Tour. Also of that smaller number, there were a host of them asking the hard questions throughout Lance's 7 wins -- but who was listening? I'm thinking of Ressiot, the reporters who found the Actovegin, Kimmage, etc.

Another interesting point: If it's all about access, and those asking the hard questions are denied access (think of Armstrong's alleged blacklist of journos), how then are they to report? They write "Bad Thing X happened among the USPS team," but USPS will not respond to questions from them, will not answer allegations, will not participate in the journalistic process. So what then? No one listens, those journos go away, and all is right with the (Armstrong) world.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

How about this one: What's your definition of journalist?
Of those 2,500 journalists, how many are journalists as you or I define them, and how many are paid semi-cheerleaders with no journalistic training or background? Of that smaller number, how many of those have as their directive to write about doping rather than write about, say, the race itself? A sports reporter doesn't necessarily have the skills to write about doping or fraud or international intrigue, and his paper could very well have directed his focus elsewhere.
Of that smaller number, I'd bet that a fair number of them will be asking hard questions at this year's Tour. Also of that smaller number, there were a host of them asking the hard questions throughout Lance's 7 wins -- but who was listening? I'm thinking of Ressiot, the reporters who found the Actovegin, Kimmage, etc.

Another interesting point: If it's all about access, and those asking the hard questions are denied access (think of Armstrong's alleged blacklist of journos), how then are they to report? They write "Bad Thing X happened among the USPS team," but USPS will not respond to questions from them, will not answer allegations, will not participate in the journalistic process. So what then? No one listens, those journos go away, and all is right with the (Armstrong) world.

Sorry - but wasn't that the point??

When this was posted:

Most journalists (of any stripe) are more than willing to compromise their integrity to get access to a major celebrity.

....you asked "name four"?

 

[Cal_Joe]

joe - I appreciate your comments but the only person I saw agree/disagree with 'Progressors' comments was yourself.

'goober' started making some comment but then said "self proclaimed Lance haters" (doesn't mention who they are) and then mentioned some have 'apparently' fallen in to an "abyss" (doesn't mention who they are) - so I am not sure whether they were agreeing or disagreeing.

But since you asked...
....I would have to disagree.

Well, there we have it. I agree with Progressor's post and you don't. The forum is now at peace.

As far as Goober's comments, they did not enter into my thinking.

While I agree with the sentiments on the (or any) article - but why the reference to one side? I did not read anyone calling 'progressor' "mentally ill, deficient or a troll".

Sorry - barely following you here - reference to one side? Need more explanation regarding this bit. As far as Progressor's comments "mentally ill, deficient or a troll", there tends to be some odd logic on this forum by some posters. Some posters appear to have a belief that if they post something that is not particularly kind about LA, and someone else disagrees with their post on solid grounds, that post responder MUST be a LA fanboy (and maybe even has a man crush!!), even though the poster has not then or never has been an advocate for LA. With that last bit, I appear to be putting words into Progressor's mouth; I aplogise in advance.

Couldn't their post be called "unwarranted flaming" that they appear to be against?

Goober has been sucked into one of the endless spats that go on here every day. Based on some recent posts by moderators, this endless loop of personal attacks may be nipped in the bud.

As far as Progressor's comments, he did not single out any individual poster, so that may not be considered flaming in the usual sense, but could possibly considered a "group flaming", which I (obviously) believe is a healthy thing for any community.

Thanks for your response.

Joe

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It also shoud be remembered that it was Juliet Macur who cut to the chase at the Landis Madrid teleconference when he did his first interviews after being caught in 2006 and he gave his infamous "I'll say no" line:

(JM) "Have you ever taken performance enhancing drugs before?"

(FL) "I'll say no. The problem I have here again is that most of the public has an idea about cycling because of the way things have gone in the past. So I'll say no, knowing that a lot of people will assume I'm guilty before I've had a chance to defend myself, but there you have it."

 

[Ferminal]

Honestly I have very little time for most journalists at the moment. Strickland just drives me insane trying to sell his book. 90% of them just fawn to the editorial policy of the newspaper or magazine they work for, or for whoever will sort out their press passes, invite them to a couple of functions. For me, a lot of them are as corrupt as certain riders, the UCI, race organisers etc. Liggett and Sherwen are probably the most obvious examples of complete omerta backers. There are exceptions, David Walsh of course being a notable one. For me, there are far more respectable bloggers that are informed and worth listening to.

AS for CN, i get more and more dissapointed by their reporting. I didnt visit the site for a long time, but recently have and have been pretty dissapointed. They did an awful job of reporting the recent WADA decision which had some really major points in it and they glossed over it completely. The latest NYT article they have failed completely to report that 2 riders are co-operating. Some of the race reports are excellent, but the news reporting is appaling at times. Im sure they just read other news sites and re-report it in their own words. The writer of the wada article clearly hadnt read the report.

I've come to realise that CN has very few writers. Not once has CN produced an original piece on this whole issue. In general there is a major lack of independent work. It took the TdF for them to have a "feature" on Contador.

 

[red_flanders]

So where's this article?

 

[Wallace]

You know what they say....

Hi Elizabeth,

Since you're here, and since, unlike the most of the posters here, you actually have first-hand knowledge of what goes on in the world of pro cycling, I'd like to ask you a question:

Why on earth does Taylor Phinney ride for RadioShack? His dad has to know the truth about Armstrong and Bruyneel--there's no way Davis can in any way pretend that his son isn't riding for the king of the dopers. If my son was super talented and Armstrong and Co. wanted to hire him, I'd say hell no, and obviously I don't know one tenth of what DP knows. What's going on here?

 

[TexPat]

Is that a rhetorical question?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well, there we have it. I agree with Progressor's post and you don't. The forum is now at peace.

As far as Goober's comments, they did not enter into my thinking.



Sorry - barely following you here - reference to one side? Need more explanation regarding this bit. As far as Progressor's comments "mentally ill, deficient or a troll", there tends to be some odd logic on this forum by some posters. Some posters appear to have a belief that if they post something that is not particularly kind about LA, and someone else disagrees with their post on solid grounds, that post responder MUST be a LA fanboy (and maybe even has a man crush!!), even though the poster has not then or never has been an advocate for LA. With that last bit, I appear to be putting words into Progressor's mouth; I aplogise in advance.



Goober has been sucked into one of the endless spats that go on here every day. Based on some recent posts by moderators, this endless loop of personal attacks may be nipped in the bud.

As far as Progressor's comments, he did not single out any individual poster, so that may not be considered flaming in the usual sense, but could possibly considered a "group flaming", which I (obviously) believe is a healthy thing for any community.

Thanks for your response.

Joe

Hmm, not quite - I agreed with 'progressors' statement on the WSJ article and to a degree on the flaming/baiting issue - but by pointing out one side over another diminishes that stance imo.

Ultimately, if your view is that there is a distinction in 'flaming' and that 'group flaming' is "healthy", then we obviously have different viewpoints on that subject.

Appreciate your post.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So where's this article?

The Wall Street Journal article?? .... It was in the New York Times

 

[ElDiablo]

So where's this article?

The guy that delivers my copy of the WSJ told me it comes out on Friday.