You are the editor/boss/interviewer?

[pmcg76]

This is stemming from the UCI spitting the dummy thread.

A lot of people have suggested the media should be more focused on the subject of doping in an effort to change the sport.

So here we go, you work for Cycle Sport, ProCycling, Eurosport etc. You are in charge of how their cycling coverage develops.

For example, in the magazines your interview sujects are Brad Wiggins, Mark Cavendish, Dan Martin &TJ VanGarderen. Guys very likely to feature in English speaking magazines. How would the interviews develop? What questions would you ask etc?

Like wise you are managing director of Eurosport, what would you be telling your cycling commentators to talk about during coverage and what approach should they take.

Based on your approach, what impact do you think this would have on the people you wish to interview, discuss and then on sales, viewership etc.

I dont mean in the context of an internet fan, I mean from the position of you are a salaried member or owner of these media outlets.

 

[Benotti69]

it is simple as far as i see it to address the whole doping issue. You ask intelligent questions of the riders int he interviews where they have to give intelligent answers or they risk looking stupid or worse dopers. the interview does not have to be doping led, but more about their form, training, race tactics and predictions but the doping is a big part of the sport and to get riders to address it to camera is important and most fans watching, except maybe Rabos, shacks and the Spanish will respect the channels for doing it.

the important bit to note is the intelligent line of questioning. Sponsors will not be happy if riders refuse interviews to TV and will not be happy if riders look stupid with their logos in full view on TV. Also media organisations should alert sponsors as to when their sponsored teams refuse interviews.

Look how much of a slagging CN gets for its lack of journalism, it repeats the press releases or rewrites others articles, which they are not unique in doing.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This is stemming from the UCI spitting the dummy thread.

A lot of people have suggested the media should be more focused on the subject of doping in an effort to change the sport.

So here we go, you work for Cycle Sport, ProCycling, Eurosport etc. You are in charge of how their cycling coverage develops.

For example, in the magazines your interview sujects are Brad Wiggins, Mark Cavendish, Dan Martin &TJ VanGarderen. Guys very likely to feature in English speaking magazines. How would the interviews develop? What questions would you ask etc?

Like wise you are managing director of Eurosport, what would you be telling your cycling commentators to talk about during coverage and what approach should they take.

Based on your approach, what impact do you think this would have on the people you wish to interview, discuss and then on sales, viewership etc.

I dont mean in the context of an internet fan, I mean from the position of you are a salaried member or owner of these media outlets.

No, I think only one person has that view.

 

[andy1234]

No, I think only one person has that view.

I'm fairly sure more than one person has that view.

I think that the average cycling fan does not want to hear more about doping in their cycling media, than they already do. Most fans know it goes on, and know where to go to find out more about the subject.
The riders and fans I know would rather read about the races, riders, equipment etc, than hear another doping related story.

It might be blinkered, but if thats what the magazine and pay channel audiences want, it would take a brave man not to give it to them.

 

[the delgados]

The job of managing editors from Eurosport is simple: Assign a beat reporter the task of reporting race results and accompanying analysis.

Anything else would result in the following:

Editor: So where's the race results?

Reporter: I don't have them, but I'm working on something else. I was told by a former racer that the entire peloton is doped. Give me some time; I'm on to something big here.

Editor: You're fired.

 

[TERMINATOR]

This is stemming from the UCI spitting the dummy thread.

A lot of people have suggested the media should be more focused on the subject of doping in an effort to change the sport.

So here we go, you work for Cycle Sport, ProCycling, Eurosport etc. You are in charge of how their cycling coverage develops.

For example, in the magazines your interview sujects are Brad Wiggins, Mark Cavendish, Dan Martin &TJ VanGarderen. Guys very likely to feature in English speaking magazines. How would the interviews develop? What questions would you ask etc?

Like wise you are managing director of Eurosport, what would you be telling your cycling commentators to talk about during coverage and what approach should they take.

Based on your approach, what impact do you think this would have on the people you wish to interview, discuss and then on sales, viewership etc.

I dont mean in the context of an internet fan, I mean from the position of you are a salaried member or owner of these media outlets.

These aren't the people who need to be interviewed. It's Pat McQuaid who needs to be interviewed.

1.) How come over 13 years after the Festina Affair the pentalty for intentional doping is only 2 years when this has been shown time and time again to not be an adequate deterrent? Why not make it 6 years for EPO use?

2.) How come the biological passport is being used to warn teams and riders when riders numbers look funny. Isn't this a complete misuse of the biological passport, which should be penal in nature and not as a private warning so riders can tweak their doping program to stay under the radar?

3.) How do you explain the UCI's complete lack of knowledge that Lance Armstrong doped throughout his entire cycling career?

4.) You have filed a lawsuit against both **** Pound and Floyd Landis for claiming to the media you are not doing enough about doping and protecting certain riders - but don't the facts show their assessments to be pretty accurate?

5.)

 

[pmcg76]

No, I think only one person has that view.

You are kidding right, everyone has been falling over themselves to praise the stance of the German TV channels in constantly talking about doping and then withdrawing. It is not one person, if people think that is praiseworthy, then surely they think the media taking this approach is the correct one.

 

[movingtarget]

You are kidding right, everyone has been falling over themselves to praise the stance of the German TV channels in constantly talking about doping and then withdrawing. It is not one person, if people think that is praiseworthy, then surely they think the media taking this approach is the correct one.

If Eurosport pulled the plug, that would be interesting. If more TV channels took the same approach as the Germans, cycling would have to reform itself or it just disappears. If Contador is banned it will be a disaster in the short term I think. Not that I expect him to get banned.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Fairly simple, stop letting dubious statements by officials and riders go unchallenged.

For example - Millar's claim that 'we should believe in Contador because he is so consistent', should not go unchallenged.

When McQuaid says something ludicrous - challenge him about it. Either at the time or in the write up.

It doesn't have to be a major sea-change, just a move to a more open, critical stance that is unafraid to ask difficult questions or questions that that will make CN unpopular with the UCI, omerta upholders and dopers.

Likewise, how about critical, questioning articles - op-ed pieces which take a critical stand point. Three small examples:

Ex-dopers as future DS's - actually ask the critical questions - how workable is this - and is it not bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted - with so many ex-dopers running teams - and NAME them.

Vaughters - can we trust him - does the reality match the perception? Actually be more questioning, be more critical and more doubtful.

Don't throw whistle-blowers under the bus. When riders try to enforce omerta call them for it.

 

[Ragerod]

it is simple as far as i see it to address the whole doping issue. You ask intelligent questions of the riders int he interviews where they have to give intelligent answers or they risk looking stupid or worse dopers. the interview does not have to be doping led, but more about their form, training, race tactics and predictions but the doping is a big part of the sport and to get riders to address it to camera is important and most fans watching, except maybe Rabos, shacks and the Spanish will respect the channels for doing it.

the important bit to note is the intelligent line of questioning. Sponsors will not be happy if riders refuse interviews to TV and will not be happy if riders look stupid with their logos in full view on TV. Also media organisations should alert sponsors as to when their sponsored teams refuse interviews.

Look how much of a slagging CN gets for its lack of journalism, it repeats the press releases or rewrites others articles, which they are not unique in doing.

Nice idea but it's not that simple. Time for my press officer's hat...

A journalist asks intelligent questions and embarrasses my rider. The sponsors aren't happy and neither am I.

Now every question has to be vetted by me and if they don't stick to the questions I've approved CN or whoever it is won't be getting another interview. The bigger the rider, the stronger my position because journalists need interviews with big names to boost sales and remain popular. Simply put, I hold all the cards.

 

[sniper]

Nice idea but it's not that simple. Time for my press officer's hat...

A journalist asks intelligent questions and embarrasses my rider. The sponsors aren't happy and neither am I.

Now every question has to be vetted by me and if they don't stick to the questions I've approved CN or whoever it is won't be getting another interview. The bigger the rider, the stronger my position because journalists need interviews with big names to boost sales and remain popular. Simply put, I hold all the cards.

you're right. that's why the ARD's position is so laudable. they didn't care too much about the press officer.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Nice idea but it's not that simple. Time for my press officer's hat...

A journalist asks intelligent questions and embarrasses my rider. The sponsors aren't happy and neither am I.

Now every question has to be vetted by me and if they don't stick to the questions I've approved CN or whoever it is won't be getting another interview. The bigger the rider, the stronger my position because journalists need interviews with big names to boost sales and remain popular. Simply put, I hold all the cards.

I ignore press officer and continue to be critical. I would rather be in a position to retain my integrity than compromise it for the sake of an interview.

If HGH refuse to grant interviews, or demand control over questions then I would name and shame them.

I would stand up and refuse to be bullied by the teams. If that means losing 'exclusive' interviews then so be it.

Principles are worth having sometimes.

 

[ChrisE]

I ignore press officer and continue to be critical. I would rather be in a position to retain my integrity than compromise it for the sake of an interview.

If HGH refuse to grant interviews, or demand control over questions then I would name and shame them.

I would stand up and refuse to be bullied by the teams. If that means losing 'exclusive' interviews then so be it.

Principles are worth having sometimes.

Hey man (or woman, don't know wth that avatar and name is all about), no offense but it is easy to have all of these principles on an internet forum. If you have been a journalist for years and then you are faced with these types of decisions to remain in your profession, you might not be so "uncompromising".

 

[andy1234]

I ignore press officer and continue to be critical. I would rather be in a position to retain my integrity than compromise it for the sake of an interview.

If HGH refuse to grant interviews, or demand control over questions then I would name and shame them.

I would stand up and refuse to be bullied by the teams. If that means losing 'exclusive' interviews then so be it.

Principles are worth having sometimes.

Principles are worth having.
So is an income.

Act that way, become a hero to the anti doping fraternity, but most importantly, make sure you have another paying gig.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Hey man (or woman, don't know wth that avatar and name is all about), no offense but it is easy to have all of these principles on an internet forum. If you have been a journalist for years and then you are faced with these types of decisions to remain in your profession, you might not be so "uncompromising".

I am faced with these kinds of decisions every day in my 'real life' so please don't assume I don't know what it is like to have to choose between sides, or to choose whether to ask questions or not, likewise, I know exactly what it is like to be blacklisted for asking tough questions of people because it's happened to me.

So I am very well aware of the choices people make, and it is easy to wimp out of a decision and say 'I'm not going to take a stand because because because' than it is to take a stand. You can always spin yourself a 'reason' for losing your principles.

As Sniper said, ARD's stance is all the more laudable.

 

[andy1234]

I am faced with these kinds of decisions every day in my 'real life' so please don't assume I don't know what it is like to have to choose between sides, or to choose whether to ask questions or not, likewise, I know exactly what it is like to be blacklisted for asking tough questions of people because it's happened to me.

So I am very well aware of the choices people make, and it is easy to wimp out of a decision and say 'I'm not going to take a stand because because because' than it is to take a stand. You can always spin yourself a 'reason' for losing your principles.

As Sniper said, ARD's stance is all the more laudable.

I'm sure, as someone who is so rooted to their principles, you won't mind sharing a few more details about the daily decisions you have to make?

 

[ChrisE]

I am faced with these kinds of decisions every day in my 'real life' so please don't assume I don't know what it is like to have to choose between sides, or to choose whether to ask questions or not, likewise, I know exactly what it is like to be blacklisted for asking tough questions of people because it's happened to me.

So I am very well aware of the choices people make, and it is easy to wimp out of a decision and say 'I'm not going to take a stand because because because' than it is to take a stand. You can always spin yourself a 'reason' for losing your principles.

As Sniper said, ARD's stance is all the more laudable.

Really? You make moral decisions daily that could jeopardize your job, your family's well being? To the point you would have to change careers if you took a stand in the face of employer income?

I am not defending the media w****s by a long shot, and good for you if you are that principled. I think most people in the media aren't, but I can understand why. It's systemic in the industry, due to access. You want access, you play the game and act like a stenographer. You want sponsorship and income for your media company, you don't upset the applecart. There are always exceptions.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You are kidding right, everyone has been falling over themselves to praise the stance of the German TV channels in constantly talking about doping and then withdrawing. It is not one person, if people think that is praiseworthy, then surely they think the media taking this approach is the correct one.

No, I have seen a few agree with the highlighted and only one agree with with the blue.

Reading the comments from the other thread it appeared most were in favour of honest reporting of doping - not blanket coverage (like ARD), or trying to ignore it (like Versus).

 

[pmcg76]

No, I have seen a few agree with the highlighted and only one agree with with the blue.

Reading the comments from the other thread it appeared most were in favour of honest reporting of doping - not blanket coverage (like ARD), or trying to ignore it (like Versus).

Dr. you have not seen the German coverage, neither have I but based on the statements made by the people who have, it would seem the focus is much more on doping than actual racing. This is the approach people supported, especially as most dont seem to know what is discussed, is it actual facts or rumours/speculation that the Germans cover. Honest reporting is all fine and well but what was being discussed was the level of doping coverage, not the honesty of it. If you think honest reporting equates togiving more coverage to doping than actual racing, that is your choice.

For once try to address the actual thread topic instead of arguing semantics.

It would seem that people are of course ignoring the part of my OP which asked what they think would be the results for their business if they followed the approach they suggest. Only seen one person answer so far.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Really? You make moral decisions daily that could jeopardize your job, your family's well being? To the point you would have to change careers if you took a stand in the face of employer income?

I am not defending the media w****s by a long shot, and good for you if you are that principled. I think most people in the media aren't, but I can understand why. It's systemic in the industry, due to access. You want access, you play the game and act like a stenographer. There are always exceptions.

I entirely understand why people do sell out for an easy life, I entirely understand why some people view what they do as 'just a job, to get the next pay cheque'. I also appreciate that you do have to deal with unsavoury people and difficult decisions and that doing the right thing might have costs. But if it is the right thing to do then you should do it.

The question was 'you are the editor' so this is how I would respond it I were the editor.

 

[ultimobici]

I ignore press officer and continue to be critical. I would rather be in a position to retain my integrity than compromise it for the sake of an interview.

If HGH refuse to grant interviews, or demand control over questions then I would name and shame them.

I would stand up and refuse to be bullied by the teams. If that means losing 'exclusive' interviews then so be it.

Principles are worth having sometimes.

Problem is that the way you propose to be principled would at best result in no interviews and a short career but could possibly lead to you ending up in court.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Would the world of cycling be poorer if Vaughters or HGH refused interviews?

How would pointing out double standards, hypocrisy, weasel words and logical fallacies end you up in court? All of those things are fair comment. It is fair comment to point out the contradictions in Vaughters comments and actions, it is fair comment to question whether the claims of Millar, McQuaid etc are plausible.

 

[Benotti69]

Problem is that the way you propose to be principled would at best result in no interviews and a short career but could possibly lead to you ending up in court.

I think Walsh, Kimmage and Ballestre are doing just fine

 

[the delgados]

The original question is based on a false premise.

Sports media and pro sports rely on each other for their existence. One would not exist without the other.

It is totally unrealistic to expect a sports reporter to devote column inches by saying everything is a lie.

That's why Paul Kimmage does not work for cyclingnews, and it's why dirty laundry is only aired by media outlets that do not rely on cycling for their existence.

 

[Mambo95]

I think Walsh, Kimmage and Ballestre are doing just fine

But Walsh and Kimmage don't often write about cycling. Walsh, for example, writes mostly about rugby, but I've yet to see him stand up in a six nations press conference and ask how the players got so big. Why not? Perhaps because he'd lose access and rugby's important to his income?