The Article: WSJ - reopened!

[perico]

The question was removed as it was from the latest BPC/Arbiters 50+ username - Betsy answered that before and the 'Arbiters' conclusion was that Betsy should have commited perjury to protect Lance

Thanks. I wasn't referring to whether Betsy committed perjury. I've actually had discussions with her on another forum (she may remember me as the person who recommended "Bad Blood" to her when it came out). I was referring to the part that if Frankie was being pressured to dope while at USPS, why was didn't it come out in the trial? I am not asking this because I am skeptical of her response, but all I know about what exactly was said in the trial off the top of my head is what is common knowledge (I remember it was discussed in some depth in walsh's book, but it's been a couple of years since I read it).

 

[alberto.legstrong]

If it's such a prevalent occurrence, it shouldn't take a whole weekend to come up with 10 names -- or a hundred names, even. You said "most journalists". So pick up a paper and pick out a name -- should be pretty easy.

It's easier than that. So easy that if someone is ignorant enough to think the world doesn't similarly work the way I described, then I could give 1000 such examples and they will continue with their 'It proves nothing' stance. So why bother spending 50 cents on a paper?

I could point out the nose on the face of the residents of the Circular Zone and that would not prove they actually had a nose so long as they say they aren't satisfied.

But given how lost this thread is, that is reality here and in general with the war of words on the racing forums.

Residents of the Circular Zone state nothing. They can't afford to state it, because 100 people can debunk their nonsense in a matter of a minutes. So they just misdirect. It's OK. A year ago (almost exactly) I was still a believer in the Cult of Lance, so there is hope for all of us.

 

[filipo]

It's easier than that. So easy that if someone is ignorant enough to think the world doesn't similarly work the way I described, then I could give 1000 such examples and they will continue with their 'It proves nothing' stance. So why bother spending 50 cents on a paper?

I could point out the nose on the face of the residents of the Circular Zone and that would not prove they actually had a nose so long as they say they aren't satisfied.

But given how lost this thread is, that is reality here and in general with the war of words on the racing forums.

Residents of the Circular Zone state nothing. They can't afford to state it, because 100 people can debunk their nonsense in a matter of a minutes. So they just misdirect. It's OK. A year ago (almost exactly) I was still a believer in the Cult of Lance, so there is hope for all of us.

Classic. Well done. Your argumentative skills are second to none.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

Classic. Well done. Your argumentative skills are second to none.

He is Risen.

 

[Publicus]

It's easier than that. So easy that if someone is ignorant enough to think the world doesn't similarly work the way I described, then I could give 1000 such examples and they will continue with their 'It proves nothing' stance. So why bother spending 50 cents on a paper?

I could point out the nose on the face of the residents of the Circular Zone and that would not prove they actually had a nose so long as they say they aren't satisfied.

But given how lost this thread is, that is reality here and in general with the war of words on the racing forums.

Residents of the Circular Zone state nothing. They can't afford to state it, because 100 people can debunk their nonsense in a matter of a minutes. So they just misdirect. It's OK. A year ago (almost exactly) I was still a believer in the Cult of Lance, so there is hope for all of us.

Bingo. I especially like the term Circular Zone. Your creation or something borrowed from someone else?

 

[alberto.legstrong]

Bingo. I especially like the term Circular Zone. Your creation or something borrowed from someone else?

All mine, big daddy.

 

[filipo]

So, among the three or four of you, we've got

Liggett
Sherwen
Wilcockson
Strickland
Frotheringham
And whatsername from the Post.

That makes up "most" journalists? Two washed-up TV commentators (ie not actual journalists), two magazine hobbyists, and two actual newspaper journalists (albeit one who's only in her position because her daddy made it so).

Again, well done. As you were.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So, among the three or four of you, we've got

Liggett
Sherwen
Wilcockson
Strickland
Frotheringham
And whatsername from the Post.

That makes up "most" journalists? Two washed-up TV commentators (ie not actual journalists), two magazine hobbyists, and two actual newspaper journalists (albeit one who's only in her position because her daddy made it so).

Again, well done. As you were.

Again - it is easier to ask, who asks Lance any hard questions?

I realize you want 'journalists' (by your definition) - but I am quite happy to accept anyone who has asked tough questions.

Phil & Paul roles are as commentators - irrespective of being 'journalists' they should commentate on the sport - not a particular athlete.

 

[filipo]

Again - it is easier to ask, who asks Lance any hard questions?

I realize you want 'journalists' (by your definition) - but I am quite happy to accept anyone who has asked tough questions.

It's also to avoid answering questions, for the lot of you, apparently. But at any rate: Greg Lemond. Paul Kimmage. Juliet Macur.
But how is anyone supposed to get an answer out of a hostile subject, as Armstrong is known to be?
Per Betsy Andreu:

Also at ToC and Vegas (where Greg showed up 1 1/2 years ago) there were journalists who put their hands up to ask significant and relevent questions but were not chosen on

Who were those journalists? Did Betsy make them up? If their questions go unanswered, what should they write?
And there was the time Kimmage sought to ask Armstrong a question but Lance talked over him and called him unworthy of his chair or some sh!t.

Phil & Paul roles are as commentators - irrespective of being 'journalists' they should commentate on the sport - not a particular athlete.

Not necessarily. What are they paid to do? Are they paid to call the race, or are they paid to promote a brand? It obviously sounds like the latter, but that's likely in their contracts or is something they discussed with their editors/superiors, not something widely broadcast.


EDIT TO ADD: I guess my point is that there are real journalists out there, and they do want to ask Lance the tough questions. But, as I see it, a number of things are happening.

-- First, not every person in the press room is a journalist. To me it's obvious that, for Lance and people like him, the impetus to go "beyond the filter" (ie the traditional media) is the preferred approach. Not only via personal media like Twitter and whatnot, but also by favoring non-journalists -- the cheerleaders and stenographers and "aggregators" that have begun to creep into the pool. So there's less room/time/availability for the real journalists to ask their questions or get called on or whatever. And there's certainly less value for someone like Lance to give those journalists the time.

-- Second, not everybody in the press room is tasked with asking the hard questions. Their role, as specified by editors and/or audience, might be merely to call the race -- the winner, the losers, the analysis, the equipment, whatever. They might not have the training or experience to ask the hard questions. (Which is why I like the Daily News guy, whose name I can't remember at the moment. Apparently he's like 24 years old and loves his sports, but he has the balls of a lion and couldn't care less about the repercussions.) So the pool of people tasked with asking the hard questions is likely smaller than you think it is.

-- Lastly, as you and me and Betsy have all pointed out, there's the blacklist issue. You ask the tough questions, you get shut out. It happens at the Tour, it happens (though less obviously) at the White House. Classic PR move. But journalists, as reporters and as employees of their media outlet, need to get the story, whatever it is. And someone like Lance can create the impression of a press conference -- with a full house and a million people answering questions -- but it's really just a softball game. So, without access to answers -- even if those answers are denials or no-comments -- the story becomes a lot harder to write.

But none of that means that "most journalists," as the original accusation from Alberto Legstrong had it, are willing to sacrifice integrity for access. Look at the most prominent journalism-related story today: McChrystal got fired for saying things he shouldn't have to a reporter. You think that reporter gave a snit about access?

 

[filipo]

I realize you want 'journalists' (by your definition) - but I am quite happy to accept anyone who has asked tough questions.

By the way, the funny thing about journalism is -- it's a profession. Like being a doctor or a garbageman. Just because you write, and just because it's published, does not make you a journalist. No matter what Arianna Huffington says.

Hey I put a bandaid on my knee just now. Today I am a doctor!

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

By the way, the funny thing about journalism is -- it's a profession. Like being a doctor or a garbageman. Just because you write, and just because it's published, does not make you a journalist. No matter what Arianna Huffington says.

Hey I put a bandaid on my knee just now. Today I am a doctor!

Yeah, but the Huffington Post is AWESOME at putting every headline in size 80 font.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's also to avoid answering questions, for the lot of you, apparently. But at any rate: Greg Lemond. Paul Kimmage. Juliet Macur.
But how is anyone supposed to get an answer out of a hostile subject, as Armstrong is known to be?
Per Betsy Andreu:


Who were those journalists? Did Betsy make them up? If their questions go unanswered, what should they write?
And there was the time Kimmage sought to ask Armstrong a question but Lance talked over him and called him unworthy of his chair or some sh!t.



Not necessarily. What are they paid to do? Are they paid to call the race, or are they paid to promote a brand? It obviously sounds like the latter, but that's likely in their contracts or is something they discussed with their editors/superiors, not something widely broadcast.

I am trying to workout what you are trying to establish - again the original post was..

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

...to which you answered "name four" - this has been done but you appear to dismiss that as a) they do not conform to your acceptance of what is a 'journalist' b) you do not know who some of these people are?

In an earlier post you appeared to agree with with 'albertos' view?

 

[filipo]

I am trying to workout what you are trying to establish - again the original post was..

...to which you answered "name four" - this has been done but you appear to dismiss that as a) they do not conform to your acceptance of what is a 'journalist' b) you do not know who some of these people are?

In an earlier post you appeared to agree with with 'albertos' view?

OK, if you haven't read my 8-page response in full yet, I understand. But quick summary:

Berto said "most journalists"
I said "name four"
I got only six names, which in itself is surprising, seeing as if "most" journalists (of any stripe, mind you) were so gutless, it should be easy to pick out 60 names
Of those six names, two are actual journalists
You have a problem with "my" definition of journalist. But it's not "my" definition, any more than it's "my" definition of apple or doctor or shinbone. A journalist is a specific thing, not an arbitrary decision. Unfortunately most people are starting to view it as the latter.
I'm still waiting for two names.
More and more people are losing interest in this topic.

Follow?

 

[Cobblestones]

I am trying to workout what you are trying to establish - again the original post was..

...to which you answered "name four" - this has been done but you appear to dismiss that as a) they do not conform to your acceptance of what is a 'journalist' b) you do not know who some of these people are?

In an earlier post you appeared to agree with with 'albertos' view?

In particular since the original quote doesn't narrow it down to cycling or even sports journalists. Any writer for any gossip rag would qualify as example for the original claim which include 100% of anyone writing about movies, fashion, travel, etc. Hell, 99% of political journalists in Washington DC would probably qualify.

Here's a suggestion to filipo: go to your dentist, pick up any magazine in the waiting room, check out the names of the writers of the first four articles, and your question will be answered.

 

[filipo]

In particular since the original quote doesn't narrow it down to cycling or even sports journalists. Any writer for any gossip rag would qualify as example for the original claim which include 100% of anyone writing about movies, fashion, travel, etc. Hell, 99% of political journalists in Washington DC would probably qualify.

Here's a suggestion to filipo: go to your dentist, pick up any magazine in the waiting room, check out the names of the writers of the first four articles, and your question will be answered.

Here's a suggestion to Cobblestones: Go to your bar/cafe/gym, meet some real-life journalists, then pretend to know what their motivation is.

By the way, the magazine I most recently picked up was Rolling Stone. Any guesses why?

 

[Barrus]

Here's a suggestion to Cobblestones: Go to your bar/cafe/gym, meet some real-life journalists, then pretend to know what their motivation is.

By the way, the magazine I most recently picked up was Rolling Stone. Any guesses why?

because you like music?

 

[Cobblestones]

Here's a suggestion to Cobblestones: Go to your bar/cafe/gym, meet some real-life journalists, then pretend to know what their motivation is.

No secret there, it's money.

 

[filipo]

because you like music?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

If ever there was a reporter brown-nosing for access, it was this Hastings guy...

 

[filipo]

No secret there, it's money.

Right. Wow, if only everything were so easy.

I realize this is an internet forum -- the Cyclingnews internet forum, even -- but still.

 

[Barrus]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

If ever there was a reporter brown-nosing for access, it was this Hastings guy...

What does a music magazine have to do with the armed forces? And well, if you call Rolling stones writers journalists, than so can a lot of cycling writers and gossip magazine writers

 

[Dr. Maserati]

OK, if you haven't read my 8-page response in full yet, I understand. But quick summary:

Berto said "most journalists"
I said "name four"
I got only six names, which in itself is surprising, seeing as if "most" journalists (of any stripe, mind you) were so gutless, it should be easy to pick out 60 names
Of those six names, two are actual journalists
You have a problem with "my" definition of journalist. But it's not "my" definition, any more than it's "my" definition of apple or doctor or shinbone. A journalist is a specific thing, not an arbitrary decision. Unfortunately most people are starting to view it as the latter.
I'm still waiting for two names.

Actually I did read your responces - and you appear to agree that 'journalists' have avoided asking the hard questions which was 'albertos' point.

Yes -journalisim is a 'trade' and I agree calling Phil Ligget current position as a commentator journalistic is a bit of a stretch - but he is an actual 'journalist' who wrote for the Observer and Guardian and was the editor of a cycling magazine.

2 names - here you go.
Douglas Brinkley.
Eric Hagerman

 

[BroDeal]

What does a music magazine have to do with the armed forces? And well, if you call Rolling stones writers journalists, than so can a lot of cycling writers and gossip magazine writers

Rolling Stone has a history of carrying really good pieces of journalism.

 

[filipo]

What does a music magazine have to do with the armed forces? And well, if you call Rolling stones writers journalists, than so can a lot of cycling writers and gossip magazine writers

So you haven't read the magazine, but you're qualified to comment on its caliber? Got it.

RS has been writing about politics, war, crime, drugs, the environment, and most of the facets of American life since its inception. It's launched and published some of the greatest names in American journalism. Sure, most of it is total sh!t, but not everything can be greatness.

The article I linked to was a profile of General Stanley McChrystal, who until recently was the Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan. I say "until recently" because that article caused him to get booted by Obama and replaced with Gen David Petreaus, who is largely credited with turning things around in Iraq. in other words, the article had a direct and very real impact on American life and foreign policy. More people's lives may be lost or saved because of this article.

The reason I posted it was because the article portrays McChrystal in an unflattering light -- enough that he got canned. It's an example, one of many, of a journalist unafraid to lose the much-vaunted access.

But feel free to continue in your total ignorance.

 

[filipo]

Actually I did read your responces - and you appear to agree that 'journalists' have avoided asking the hard questions which was 'albertos' point.

No -- I didn't say "avoided". I specifically made the point that they have largely been unable to ask the hard questions.

Yes -journalisim is a 'trade' and I agree calling Phil Ligget current position as a commentator journalistic is a bit of a stretch - but he is an actual 'journalist' who wrote for the Observer and Guardian and was the editor of a cycling magazine.

And Bill O'Reilly has been on TV an awful long time. Is he a journalist?
Another question: What led those papers to hire Liggett?

2 names - here you go.
Douglas Brinkley.
Eric Hagerman

You got me there. Anything written about Lance Armstrong in Outside magazine is absolute, one hundred percent total chammy-sniffing cack. On that we agree.
As for Brinkley and VF, gladly accepted. See? Now was that so hard?

I'd offer up a third name, but Betsy can tell you more about that...

 

[Barrus]

So you haven't read the magazine, but you're qualified to comment on its caliber? Got it.

RS has been writing about politics, war, crime, drugs, the environment, and most of the facets of American life since its inception. It's launched and published some of the greatest names in American journalism. Sure, most of it is total sh!t, but not everything can be greatness.

The article I linked to was a profile of General Stanley McChrystal, who until recently was the Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan. I say "until recently" because that article caused him to get booted by Obama and replaced with Gen David Petreaus, who is largely credited with turning things around in Iraq. in other words, the article had a direct and very real impact on American life and foreign policy. More people's lives may be lost or saved because of this article.

The reason I posted it was because the article portrays McChrystal in an unflattering light -- enough that he got canned. It's an example, one of many, of a journalist unafraid to lose the much-vaunted access.

But feel free to continue in your total ignorance.

I just read the music articles always, and well a lot of those are sometimes not that well written. But an article need not be good to have a large impact on the lives and the general opinion, most often a bad article is better at that. But still that has absolutely nothing to do with sports journalists, of which you gave no example as to who you find a real journalist, or don't you find sports journalists, journalists?

BTW did read the article for a bit, but really was not interesting in the least for me, so didn't really kept on reading.