Journalists - Ignorant, lazy or stupid?

JimW · 1 Oct 2004, 21:41 (Ref:1112835)

The Times has three pages (tabloid version) of Silverstone comment today. Much of it is pretty routine (but not wrong). But why can't a supposedly reputable "Paper of Record" get basic facts nearly right?

There is a section called "Memorable moments at the circuit" which is under a Silverstone not British GP heading. It includes

Quote:

1976: Stewards warded off a near riot by letting James Hunt restart in his McLaren after an accident on the first corner. Fans threw beer cans when word came that he may not get to start. When he did, he overtook Niki Lauda’s Ferrari at Druid’s Bend to win and go on to the world title. Two months later, a court disqualified him and gave the race to Lauda.

Now even a moderate anorak would know that this was at Brands Hatch. I only know because I was marshalling there and ducking beer cans.

But it is hardly rocket science to be able to distinguish between a Grand Prix and races at Silverstone is it?

With apologies to any journalists reading this, it does bear out my view that, if you know about a subject, the best any piece of journalism will get is: Nearly right, Lord Copper

Regards

Jim

luke · 1 Oct 2004, 21:44 (Ref:1112837)

Just a mistake. I'm always picking up on mistakes in books and magazines etc.

Rich R · 1 Oct 2004, 21:54 (Ref:1112840)

that means your an anorak then luke.

**Spudgun** · 1 Oct 2004, 21:54 (Ref:1112841)

Pretty big mistake.

Rich R · 1 Oct 2004, 21:55 (Ref:1112842)

not like i'm any different though.

**Adam43** · 1 Oct 2004, 22:41 (Ref:1112879)

Quote:

Originally posted by JimW
The Times has three pages (tabloid version) of Silverstone comment today. Much of it is pretty routine (but not wrong). But why can't a supposedly reputable "Paper of Record" get basic facts nearly right?

Is it any different from here?

However it is both 'just a mistake' and 'shoddy'.

Still, if Silverstone goes then that is probably the loss of the British GP gone. In which case 1976 is relevant...

garcon · 1 Oct 2004, 22:42 (Ref:1112880)

Journalists - ignorant, lazy or stupid?

After careful consideration of all the facts, I'd have to say that invariably they are all three.

**Spudgun** · 1 Oct 2004, 22:43 (Ref:1112881)

Quote:

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
Is it any different from here?

Journalists are paid to report facts. We are 'amateur' reporters. We're allowed to make mistakes.

Fireblade · 1 Oct 2004, 22:53 (Ref:1112889)

Quote:

Originally posted by Spudgun
Journalists are paid to report facts. We are 'amateur' reporters. We're allowed to make mistakes.

News of the World you work for then is it, lol.

**Adam43** · 1 Oct 2004, 22:59 (Ref:1112894)

Quote:

Originally posted by Spudgun
Journalists are paid to report facts. We are 'amateur' reporters. We're allowed to make mistakes.

No. Iignorance, lazyness and stupidity is not something even an ametuer should have as a hobby.

Kicking-back · 1 Oct 2004, 23:16 (Ref:1112911)

I'm a journalist and am not ignorant, lazy or stupid.

But I do make mistakes sometimes.

**Adam43** · 1 Oct 2004, 23:25 (Ref:1112925)

Lets take this more generally.

I despise the method of journalism that means you get a decent story by reporting something on the basis of little fact. Some Italian or German mag. reports so and so... There should be more of an attitude of "if I have nothing good to say, I shall say nothing". However journo are paid to write, they can't just say nothing. What is worse is that so many (of us) just lap it up as fact. Even those who claim to be cynics!

Still one of my best friends is a 'journo'. Stupid, lazy and ignorant you could not accuse him of.

Kicking-back · 1 Oct 2004, 23:30 (Ref:1112932)

The worst type of journalism is that where a sensational headline or intro is not supported by the story.

**Adam43** · 1 Oct 2004, 23:47 (Ref:1112941)

Yes, I can imagine that in that profession it must annoy the whatsit out of you!

**Spudgun** · 2 Oct 2004, 00:18 (Ref:1112958)

Quote:

Originally posted by Fireblade
News of the World you work for then is it, lol.

If I didn't have a sense of humour, I'd be offended by that.

Quote:

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
No. Iignorance, lazyness and stupidity is not something even an ametuer should have as a hobby.

My post didn't mention anything that indicated that. You quoted me against someone else's post! But I'll let you off.

In all seriousness, if you're going to report something in an official publication you should at least get your facts right. I't's not exactly a grey area is it? The Brands Hatch incident is nothing to do with Silverstone. Surely it's not that hard if you do your reasarch. Sorry, but the obvious mistake just to me screams ignorance on the part of the journo that wrote it.

I mean, if they got the corner wrong thats understandable, but the wrong track?

**Adam43** · 2 Oct 2004, 09:03 (Ref:1113141)

Ooops, sorry Spudgun

Nordic · 2 Oct 2004, 10:24 (Ref:1113192)

I think I general point here is if the papers get simple facts wrong about something you know about then you can pick it up and discount the story as it calls into question all the other facts in an article.

What should worry us all is when we have no knowledge about a more serious subject and assume the paper has reported the facts correctly.

Morris 1100 · 2 Oct 2004, 10:39 (Ref:1113201)

Last night one of the TV stations in Aus said that Silverstone was the site of the very first ever Grand Prix ...

Barbazza · 2 Oct 2004, 10:59 (Ref:1113225)

Just out of interest, if I posted a thread entitled 'Driver X - ignorant, lazy or stupid?' how long would that last before being pulled? I'd have half a dozen people crying 'bash' before I could think twice. Why is it journalists are fair game and not drivers, team owners etc?

garcon · 2 Oct 2004, 11:06 (Ref:1113231)

Fair point. Mind you, if you were to post 'driver x - ignorant, lazy or stupid' and then back that up with some kind of reasonable argument then it certainly wouldn't get pulled, unless it subsequently descended into a bashfest...

Some journalists do kind of set themselves up for it though, don't you think?

Of course, I was being a little facetious when I said "all three", it would be wrong to tar all journalists with the same brush.

Nordic · 2 Oct 2004, 11:16 (Ref:1113242)

There was is a classic piece of reporting on Autosports web page. In the Sportscar section there is a picture of James Weaver giving the thumbs up, the text then refers to him winning the Petit LM race with JJ Letho.
The problem is that James drives for Dyson and not Audi, Letho's team mate was Marco Werner.
While not a crime, mistakes happen, but to leave it up without amending the picture for over 5 days compounds the error.

Barbazza · 2 Oct 2004, 11:20 (Ref:1113247)

It looks to me like a simple mistake, which we all make. I've not seen any reasonable argument to back up "lazy" - the guy produced a three-page spread with many thousands of words at short notice. "Stupid" wouldn't seem appropriate for someone who is among the most trusted F1 writers out there (I presume Kevin Eason wrote it, although I've not seen the paper). "Ignorant" is more subjective but I'd suggest a three-page spread with one error doesn't stand up as a case for major ignorance.

Knowlesy · 2 Oct 2004, 11:53 (Ref:1113283)

Shouldn't this be merged with the Autosport thread in Armchair E? :confused:

Kenny W. · 5 Oct 2004, 07:32 (Ref:1115600)

Interesting examples:

from planetf1

**Adam43** · 5 Oct 2004, 08:18 (Ref:1115619)

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ignorant question about carbon fibre on F1 cars	Suzy	Racing Technology	8	27 Sep 2004 07:26
Excuse the ignorant American but...	Scrutineer78	Sportscar & GT Racing	12	18 Jan 2004 22:09
Lucky for the journalists...	corkholio	ChampCar World Series	8	13 Sep 2003 07:08