• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Why was the United States of Omerta thread deleted?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

TheGame

Mar 12, 2010
545
0
0
The thread that had this in it?

The right wing columnist Woodrow Wyatt self-styled himself 'the voice of reason'. Private Eye styled him as the 'voice of Alzheimer's' owing to his ability to forget the things he had previous said and done.

We have this piece by Benson with no sign of a mea culpa.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/...ates-of-omerta

It is all well and good for Benson to criticise others, but he should really be a bit more up front and self-critical here and CN itself ought to think about a mea culpa. CN's coverage of Armstrong over the years has been hagiographic for the most part. Uncritically reporting on his every move and thought and dismissing any critics.

At no point does Benson hold his hands up and say 'we got it wrong' or even reflect on how CN played its part in building up and maintaining the Armstrong myth. Remember those articles about Armstrong and Sheryl Crow, Armstrong doing some running, if Armstrong had opened an envelope CN would have sent someone along to report on it.

Benson talks about how whistleblowers should have been supported but he seems to forget how CN facilitated the personal attacks on Landis and others by David Millar. CN gleefully repeated all of these attacks uncritically.

Benson talks about how the media has been complicit in omerta. Who can forget the irony of this when Laura Weislo went onto twitter to cry about how journalists were being blamed for maintaining omerta.

Benson talks about how journalists 'are now asking tough questions' is this going to extend to CN? Are they going to start grilling Sky and Wiggins on their lack of transparency and hiring dopers? Or asking David Millar about the contradictions in his comments and actions? Or is it going to be more of the same - hagiography until the balloon goes up and then hand wringing and saying we knew all along? Is it going to be more fawning puff pieces from Westemeyer, Friebe?

Is new 'tough' journalism merely going what its been in the past - namely piling onto the whipping boys like Ricco and now Armstrong, or is it actually going to put its head above the parapet and go for Brailsford, Cavendish, Wiggins, Phinney and all the latest golden boys of cycling?

Will Benson's new 'tough' journalism survive when Sky or Saxo threaten to cut access to Wiggins or Contador? When the invites to those training camps in Spain in February dry up, when the invites to the new team kit launch or bike launch stop coming, or when its a slow news day and they need something to pass off on the newsfeed?

It's hard to take Benson's article serious given CN attitude and coverage over the years and the lack of self-reflection or criticism suggests that Benson and the other CN journalists don't think that they've got anything wrong, all which doesn't really bode well for the future.
Click to expand...

I would say its self explanatory
 
Mrs John Murphy

Mrs John Murphy

May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
Not really, after all Benson responded in the thread and there was a discussion about the article. If it was so self-explanatory it would surely been deleted there and then. It was up and around for several months.
 
hiero2

hiero2

Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Huh? It's not closed.

I love that line - "What we've got here, is FAILURE to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. . . ." the Captain, Cool Hand Luke.

Except, in this case, it was a failure to look. I found the thread, on about page 25 or so, last post was in October last year, it isn't closed at all. Nor is it deleted - MJM - are you making uncorroborated allegations again? Trying to create some smoke again? :D
That thread is still there.
 
C

Cyivel

Aug 5, 2012
2,290
0
0
I just had a look and I can't see the thread, maybe like Netserk said mods can do and see things others can't.

I know there is a link in the OP but for the sake of argument link the thread here so people can see that everyone can access it.
 
krebs303

krebs303

Mar 16, 2009
19,482
2
0
Capture5.PNG
 
hiero2

hiero2

Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
This is odd - it is NOT showing as deleted to me. I'll look into what is going on.
 
Mrs John Murphy

Mrs John Murphy

May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
hiero2 said:
Huh? It's not closed.

I love that line - "What we've got here, is FAILURE to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. . . ." the Captain, Cool Hand Luke.

Except, in this case, it was a failure to look. I found the thread, on about page 25 or so, last post was in October last year, it isn't closed at all. Nor is it deleted - MJM - are you making uncorroborated allegations again? Trying to create some smoke again? :D
That thread is still there.
Click to expand...

Or not as the case maybe. You've jumped the gun there.

If someone could find out why it has vanished that'd be nice.
 
alitogata

alitogata

Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
Someone, obviously with administrator rights made it visible to specific members or mods. Vbulletin gives this option, some threads can be visible only to some members, or group of members. This thread is not deleted, it is hidden. Check in the properties of the thread in admin's board to find out what is going on .. It must have an option "visible to all/some/none" something like this. :)
 
Granville57

Granville57

Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
If someone could find out why it has vanished that'd be nice.
Click to expand...
Did you go through your official CN checklist of automatic thread deletion infractions? Did the thread posses any of the following qualities?

Amusing to some members but not to some mods.

Contained threat of legal action by a member against CN (a very frightening prospect indeed ! :eek:)

Directly quoted from another thread that is still open for public viewing (especially if one of the quotes is from a mod, even though, as previously stated, that same thread is still open to the public).

This last infraction is apparently one of the more egregious ones. Do not, under any circumstances, quote directly from an already existing thread, especially if that thread contains subject matter that CN would rather have everyone forget about. If you do, all evidence of such behavior will instantly disappear into the void (or so I've been told :rolleyes:).
 
Netserk

Netserk

Apr 30, 2011
42,837
24,627
28,180
The thread is closed, but unlike normal closed threads, this one doesn't seem closet at first glance. Also unlike normal closed threads, I can't restore this one. There is simply nothing in my powers to do anything with the thread, so I think it has been 'moderated' by CN staff.
 
hiero2

hiero2

Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
Or not as the case maybe. You've jumped the gun there.

If someone could find out why it has vanished that'd be nice.
Click to expand...

Sorry - you are correct. I could see it, it was not deleted, it was tagged, tho, as moderated. It seems we have some good ppl who know a bit more about how vbulletin works than I do - glad they are sharing it so I can learn.

I still like the Cool Hand Luke quote tho! :D

I finally looked up your sig quote - the Pixies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom