donwatters
I've always taken most everything I've read about F1 online with the traditional grain of salt. That said, I'm always up for the latest gossip and rumour. Gosh, without them it wouldn't be half the fun.
Date Added: 16/03/2009

Clive
Exactly, Don. So many news items are based on flimsy evidence yet provide fodder for amusing discussion - but that doesn't mean that we believe them!
Date Added: 16/03/2009

Ollie

It is not about being right or wrong anyway - just a matter of saying what we think and letting others have their say too.

Precisely. To digress slightly onto feedback and comments...

It was mentioned recently that the larger sites, Grandprix.com included, could never host a comment system like you, I and the other blogs do. To me, this doesn't hold true, especially as it has been proven by RenaultF1 that a large organisation can manage. Having said that of course, I once visited the BBC's 606 forums and after seeing the childish nature of many of the comments, I never returned.

It isn't impossible though and flat denial of such a proposition is simply uneducated. I can't remember where I read that line about news sites unable to host comments - a lot has been flying around the past week - but if I come across it again I'll add to the comments here.

Keith from F1Fanatic should be given some praise for he attempted to incorporate GMM news stories into his blog. There was some backlash, and my personal feeling is not that of the chosen agency's reputation or quality, but that it distracted somewhat from the point of F1Fanatic being the personal 'child' of Keith's that he alone (pretty much) has nurtured from its beginnings. However, Keith was open about what he was doing, asked for feedback and left the comments open on the articles.

I think Alia is right in saying that (respected) news sites and (respected) bloggers can co-exist. We don't always get it right, but that really isn't the point, as you yourself say. I too felt a little offended by Joe's article when I first read it, but the follow-up article posted a day or two later made me realise just who Saward was talking about. Alas, I don't believe it was necessarily us bloggers, as mentioned in your post here. Joe's interview on Sidepodcast also clarified his point further (which I recommend listening to).

It's interesting that this has all appeared to come to the fore this year. Previously, it was just a handful of blogs, the big news sites and the agencies that distribute articles to others. While in the pub last weekend I pointed out to "me" from Sidepodcast that all of sudden, to me at least, it seems that more and more respected journalists and F1-insiders have started a blog. James Allen, Joe Saward, even Martin Brundle now has a website, although the blog part is perhaps not classed as a traditional blog. There are a few others as well, and I wonder if the interest in blogging, certainly in the motor sporting world, has finally reached those who never would have dreamed of doing it before. This, inevitably, makes those people think twice about what is going on in the F1-blogosphere and how the sport they report on is being discussed away from the comfort of their own news sites.

Joe also mentioned in his post that bloggers could easily gain paddock passes and become insiders if they had the funding in place. While I have absolutely no experience of this process, my thoughts are that the FIA like to control the accredited media as much as they possibly can (just look at Brundle's relationship with the FIA), and the day a private blogger gets a paddock pass will be the day I fall off my chair in utter shock. I do not believe it is as easy as finding £50k and filling in a form.

This is a bit of rambling comment, and maybe my thoughts would be better suited to some structure and posting as an article on my site, but I thought I would leave a few of my thoughts here, if anything to see what others felt about them, and of course, your post.
Date Added: 16/03/2009

sidepodcast
"Sidepodcast having already pointed at the the unfairness of Joe's blanket condemnation"

what the chuff? when did we say anything of the sort?
Date Added: 16/03/2009

sidepodcast
clive, you have totally, totally got the wrong of the stick with this one.

i understand why the post may have got your back up, but please read the following if you have a minute:

http://www.sidepodcast.com/2009/02/03/f1-websites-you-can-trust/

in the comments you'll find the most pathetic attempt at defending the indefensible, by the person responsible for GMM's output. he gets justly ripped to shreds in the comments that follow.

that company is not as you try and claim a "collating house for information from all sorts of original sources". as ollie mentioned, please give this weeks podcast a listen, you may find it enlightening.
Date Added: 16/03/2009

Clive
I have to attend a dinner engagement in a few minutes so I will answer fully later. But I did want to apologise for the slip of memory that assigned the "Blanket condemnation" comment to Sidepodcast - you're quite right, Sidey, you said nothing of the sort. It was, in fact, Keith Collantine's comment that I referred to: "...although I haven’t got an F1 paddock pass, I doubt it’s printed on the reverse that only the bearer has a right to speculate about what’s going on in Formula 1." Sorry about that, Sidey - a senior moment on my part. ;)

Also, I listened to Sidepodcast's interview with Joe immediately after posting this article and I agree that it is well worth listening to. My quibble is with the apparent aim of the "Load of rubbish" post, not the man himself.

More later. :D
Date Added: 16/03/2009

Ollie
To be fair to Clive (and to perhaps rudely respond before the author does himself)...

that company is not as you try and claim a "collating house for information from all sorts of original sources".

The paragraph does continue to say...

Many of its [GMM] articles turn out to be sheer nonsense

I disagree with the following remarks Clive makes in that paragraph (it's my opinion that traditional media are following GMM and the ilk because invariably, GMM et al are up first, such is the nature of the 'net), but Clive is clear in saying that GMM stories often turn out to be nonsense.

Just sayin'.
Date Added: 16/03/2009

sidepodcast
if you could correct your post upon your return clive, that would be very much appreciated.

i fundamentally disagree with keith's stance on this subject. in fact we are pretty much polar opposites in our opinions on this one. you might have picked a better person to misquote me with!

it's an interesting and important debate though. looking forward to your return
Date Added: 16/03/2009

me
"it's my opinion that traditional media are following GMM and the like because invariably, GMM et al are up first, such is the nature of the 'net"

i disagree. people are using them because they are likely the cheapest available.

clive is also saying "...readers become accustomed to taking anything from certain publications with a large pinch of salt and no real harm is done."

which i think i rubbish. if people see a certain headline in enough places, they just assume it to be fact.
Date Added: 16/03/2009

Ollie
"me" and myself (that sounds utterly strange) have been having a conversation on Identi.ca this evening, and among other things, I did state there that I disagreed with the whole rumour being acceptable thing because of the reasons Clive states in the post. Yes, rumour is great, and I myself don't mind sinking some teeth into something juicy every now and then. A bit of Heat magazine-esque posting takes the edge of the seriousness of the sport. It's exactly for this reason that I started the Caption Contest at BF1 - when the whole McLaren thing kicked off in 2007. But I am very aware when reading, and hopefully very clear when writing such things. Although I completely agree that just because I am aware and clear, not everybody is and that is where the chain is broken and it can get very confusing. The "Alonso plane crash" story being a perfect example.

I'm not going to regurgitate content from elsewhere (ID.ca), but I feel this post on F1 Insight is more about Clive exclaiming his initial impression of Joe's post, and then his thoughts on the matter(s) after re-reading and better understanding what exactly Mr Saward said. Which was a similar experience to myself, with the exception that I did not post.

i disagree. people are using them because they are likely the cheapest available.

Without wanting to sound rude, I fail to see how that makes a difference to what I said. Whether they are the cheapest or the quickest comparison (because of their chosen medium) is irrelevant. My point was that I felt traditional media would more likely follow GMM than vice versa because of the speed element. Who will publish first: once-weekly Autosport magazine (not that I believe they use GMM, but as an example of a publication) or the Internet? That was the point I was hoping to make.

which i think i rubbish. if people see a certain headline in enough places, they just assume it to be fact.

Which, as I said on Identi.ca, I agree with (although in only 140 characters!).

I shall await Clive's return from his dinner engagement before commenting further. I've annoyed more than one person today and I don't want to add to the list. Hugs to all. :)
Date Added: 16/03/2009

Clive
Ollie: Right, back from dinner, everyone in Europe tucked up soundly in their beds and time to tackle a few comments!

I do sympathise with the problems of the major news sites in providing for instant interaction with their readers. I know that many of them have tried and been deluged with the sort of abusive and silly comments you refer to. The usual solution is to open a forum and let the readers fight it out there - but it isn't one that appeals to me as I'm more of a blog person than a forum type (I do belong to a couple of forums, one of which I consider to be the best F1 forum, but rarely have a chance to visit these days).

We should not really complain since the shortcomings of the news sites in the interactivity field do open the way for blogs to cater to the need for discussion. Keith's blog is interesting in that it approaches the level of readership enjoyed by the news sites and yet he still copes with the flood of comments. How he manages to keep an eye on everything and still produce articles every day is a mystery to me but the plain fact is that he does (with the occasional wrist slap for comments that offend against his commenting guidelines). The result is that his F1 Fanatic is a model of good blog management.

I found Keith's inclusion of an edited feed from GGMF1 quite useful; it saved me having to keep an eye on that agency's output, although I do still have an occasional look since it sometimes has items of quirky interest that not many pick up on. More on that later, no doubt, but I do find your dislike of the inclusion of news items on F1 Fanatic a little strange. Keith has always introduced items of news although he does not claim to be the originator and always gives his sources. The GGMF1 feed was an extra included in the sidebar and could be ignored by those who did not want it. The main content has continued and sparked many an interesting debate in the comments - what's to complain about?

Or maybe I'm just afraid of the competition should Keith change the site to be more of an opinion blog. ;)

I agree that Joe Saward's post was not directed against bloggers and that he made this clear in his follow-up post. Skipping quickly to a later comment of yours, you are quite right that my post was the result of initial reactions. Like you, I decided not to write about it at the time but then read Ali's post this morning and was suddenly re-ignited over the matter. As I said earlier, my post is directed at Joe's first post on the matter only and is an expression of annoyance at its apparently scatter gun approach. Yes, I chose to ignore his second post - so shoot me. :D

It's kinda cool that the F1 world has discovered blogging at last - sorta gives us some claim to legitimacy after all. I applaud Mr Saward and James Allen for daring to enter the rough and tumble blogosphere and I don't deny that they have set high standards so far that we should all aspire to. Not that I would ever admit that to them - they're getting enough adoration from the bloggers as it is!

Max and Bernie (and FOTA) should read the F1 blogs indeed. They are the originators of the items in the news sites, after all, so there is nothing for them to learn there. Whereas there is plenty to learn from the opinions expressed and commented upon in the blogs - probably more valuable stuff than surveys that concern themselves mainly with the thoughts of those who don't know the first thing about the sport...

But that's a hobby horse for another day maybe.

Date Added: 17/03/2009

me
it does occur to me, that there used to be a site that i read a long time ago (before i understood how bad the sources were), that was edited by a certain chap who may or may not now write posts on this very domain.

i would be interested to hear that persons take on how they found said dodgy sources, and what ever happened to that site?

i think in that instance i was the very model of a reader who should've know better, but instead took everything as read and not with a side order of table salt. i learned the hard way mind you.

how about a post on the subject of ye olde news site clive?
Date Added: 17/03/2009

Clive
Sidepodcast: Post edited as requested.

Having taken rather more than a minute to read the discussion on Sidepodcast.com regarding websites to be trusted and GMMF1 as an originator of dodgy info (missed it at the time - sorry), I have to say that I might have been a bit kind in describing GMMF1 as a collating centre for F1 news from various sources. It is true that it does not check news items before publishing them and the following quote made me smile: "By email and via the subscribers’ website, Global Motorsport Media delivers between 10 and 30 original, highly researched and professionally compiled Formula 1 news articles for publication every day."

Ah well, such is the nature of self promotion, I suppose. But I still think my description, although kind, is closer to the truth than a blanket description of the site as a bad source. It gives its own sources quite clearly on each item and a little experience soon reveals many of the magazines and newspapers printing the original stories to be umm, somewhat imaginative. Once this has been realised, it becomes a matter for the blogs or sites using GMMF1's material to exercise their own discretion on what they do and do not use (just as Keith did with his feed from GMMF1).

Which leaves GMMF1 as a site that collects stories appearing in the traditional media and presenting them for use by blogs and news sites. If some of their stories are irresponsibly inaccurate, that is more the fault of the originating publications than GMMF1's.

What I found very interesting in your post was the long and growing list of sites that can be trusted (although I did smile at the inclusion by one commenter of a particular site that uses the GMMF1 feed indiscriminately). It seems that there are many more worthy F1 news sites out there than I was aware of and I begin to wonder at the exact target Mr Saward was aiming at. Could he really have meant only GMMF1 and its users?

Date Added: 17/03/2009

Clive
Sidepodcast (again): You keep late hours, Sidey - it's 11:00pm here and you're still commenting into the early hours! I'm impressed.

Okay, you're referring in your last comment (I'll get back to the unanswered ones if I don't inadvertently answer them in this one) to Formula1Sport.net. Yes, I edited it and it relied heavily on the feed from GMMF1. In mitigation for my crime, I must point out that I took it on as a going concern in the same innocent state as yourself, Sidey, and had no control over its news sources, these remaining in the hands of the owner.

We had plans to improve it but, thanks to my inability to get the owner moving on them, they never came to fruition; I was left editing the thing to keep it alive while the owner searched for a buyer. In the end, all deals fell through and I let it die. Some of its readers were brave enough to follow me to F1 Insight - I think the lively discussions that developed on F1S had become addictive.

As to the GMMF1 feed itself, I started by throwing everything in but then began to edit out the more questionable stories. I let many of the "rumor" items through because they proved useful in starting debate; the readers accepted that they were rumors and that we were merely speculating when discussing them.

That really is my point about GMMF1 - as long as it is recognised that it is indiscriminate in its collection of stories, it serves a purpose in generating interest in periods when there is not much going on. Were the teams to be as open and honest as Renault have been in their approach to the net, there would be far less need for such sites as GMMF1. If we want the public to read hard and genuine news rather than guesswork and fabrication, the sport must provide the necessary. As long as the demand exceeds the supply, there will be those who will invent to meet the need.

As regards the traditional media following GMMF1, as mentioned by Ollie, that is news to me. It seems to me that the reverse is true, since GMMF1 relies so heavily on the press for its garnered news items. And the reason blogs and sites use GMMF1 is cheapness more than anything else (good grief, I agreed with Sidey - something must be wrong!). As far as I can see, speed has nothing to do with it - GMMF1 is usually a day or two behind with news.

I am a bit more hopeful when it comes to the discrimination of readers, however, Sidey. Most of the comments I see on this and other blogs I read come from people who can tell the difference between a rumour and factual news as well as can you or I. There are those, it is true, who may comment elsewhere who are happy to run with rumour and treat it as fact (hence the success of Tom Rubython's articles) but they rarely show up in our neighbourhood. Their natural habitat is more the forums, I think.

As long as we identify sources and call rumour what it is, we do no harm in discussing it. We are, as the Americans say, chewing the cud while awaiting the next GP. And, if GMMF1 wants to throw us a bit of fodder now and then, fair enough, we'll chew on it and enjoy the chewing.

Did I cover everything? I think I did...
Date Added: 17/03/2009

me
i went to sleep eventually :)

formula1sport.net, that's the one, and i used to believe (and link to it) a lot. ahh, the innocence.

re: "Could he really have meant only GMMF1 and its users?"

if it helps... i'm not aware of any others.

you have covered everything :)

i disagree with the amount of slack you're cutting said agency. there isn't anything else i can add that i haven't already said elsewhere though. rubython is a different kettle of fish and i think that argument muddies the water. the two are entirely different problems in my eyes.


Date Added: 17/03/2009

Clive
It wouldn't be the first pool Tom Rubython has muddied! I introduced him merely to illustrate the fact that possession of a paddock pass does not make one a reputable journalist. Of course, I may have been a little carried away when describing his talents - I still think that Ferrari article is a masterpiece of imagination and atmosphere. ;)
Date Added: 17/03/2009

me
it really is :)

tom may have become bitter or possibly disillusioned during his time in the paddock. but he was still a writer and mostly seemed to put thought into what he wrote.

that isn't same as somebody sitting at their laptop and doing this:

copy/paste/post
copy/paste/post
copy/paste/post

thirty times a day, and claiming it to be journalism.
Date Added: 17/03/2009

Clive
All true and I'll not argue with it. If only my life were so easy!
Date Added: 17/03/2009

Arun Srini
"I am a bit more hopeful when it comes to the discrimination of readers, however, Sidey. Most of the comments I see on this and other blogs I read come from people who can tell the difference between a rumour and factual news as well as can you or I."

I have come across atleast 50 blogs in F1 world started by little school children (a metaphor) playing in the world of professors like you and Keith, who proclaim they have true news from reliable sources and all they do is
copy/paste/post
copy/paste/post
copy/paste/post
from the teams' site. No useful info, no commentary nothing. We know, albeit after spending hours reading the news and knowing whats true and what's not, forum discussions etc etc, who are reliable and who ain't. I have 3 news sites in my rss reader and 8 commentary sites that includes yours, keith's, ollie's, Milos', Ali, sidey, James, Joe, Dr.Vee and have been reading religiously ever since this set came into force. Please don't take Joe's comment personally since it wasn't directed to 'insight'ful commentators like you.
We have grandprix, autosport which are excellent sites for news, and the above listed ones the best for commentary. Period.

"How he manages to keep an eye on everything and still produce articles every day is a mystery to me but the plain fact is that he does (with the occasional wrist slap for comments that offend against his commenting guidelines). The result is that his F1 Fanatic is a model of good blog management."

If at all there is an award for contribution for F1 online, mine and millions' first choice would be his, I wonder how i'd have enjoyed many races without that site, living in Dallas where F1 fans (not needing fanatics like me) are one in 100 sq km.
Date Added: 17/03/2009

Arun Srini
Perhaps you can post something about what you read, online, traditional, regularly on Formula 1. I know another reputed member in the blogosphere has already done it. But I am very keen on knowing yours.
Date Added: 17/03/2009

Clive
Thanks for the kind comments, Arun. I am always amazed at the fine quality of American F1 fans; they may be fewer in number than the Europeans but the vast majority are knowledgeable, passionate about the sport and well mannered. It saddens me to have witnessed how badly they have been treated by the F1 powers that be.

As to the sites I read, my list is similar to yours. To illustrate how I go about reading every day, here is my essential itinerary:

First stop is always F1 Fanatic. I read it less for news and view it as the best place to feel the pulse of the online F1 community - Keith introduces a wide range of subjects that spark a great deal of debate and I follow them all.

Then it's off to Get Fuzzy for my cartoon hit of the day, before having a look at My Yahoo which I have set to take the RSS feeds from news sites I don't regularly visit (Paddock Talk, GPUpdate.net, Yahoo! Formula 1 news). These occasionally have items that are worth reading but mostly they cover the same stories that I know my regular news sites will cover.

After that, I am into the news sites, starting with GrandPrix.com. Its output is a bit sparse but pretty solidly based. Over to Pitpass (excellent info on the financial side of F1) and then to Autosport.

By that time, I'm getting repeats of news stories so I know I've covered the main items. And that is when I start on the blogs. Vee8 is first because he lists the most interesting stories around and includes items from newspapers and sites that I don't read - very useful. Ollie's BlogF1 is after that and I will quite often stop there to add to any discussions in the comments that interest me.

Pressure to write is such that I generally leave it at that. If I have time later in the day, I listen to the podcasts at Sidepodcast and Formula 1 Blog and read any stories there that interest me. Sometimes I feel guilty for not visiting F1 Wolf more often - he is very good on providing background info on F1 but rarely provides me with the spark that sets me writing. He has said it all and gives me little to add or get in a froth about!

Also on my occasional list is the excellent Motorsports Ramblings - infrequently updated but excellent reading when Patrick does post. The team sites I read when I need more info or have spare time. News from them is generally covered by other sites so there is little point in watching them on a regular basis.

Essentially, I am looking for items that interest me and on which I might have a different take from the usual. I see little point in restating news from elsewhere unless I can throw a different light on it in some way. It's not that I am trying to be controversial - much more that I want to encourage fans to think beyond the conventional. As an instance, I have been saying for years that it is not overtaking as such that F1 needs, it is quality overtaking in cars that can follow each other closely. The F1 community is beginning to realize this and we now have rule changes intended to bring it about.
Date Added: 17/03/2009

Clive
Oops, must have missed a closing italics tag up there. Can you fix it please, Mad?
Date Added: 17/03/2009

patrick
Thanks for the kind comments about Motorsports Ramblings, Clive. Your site is one of the relatively few blogs I come to regularly.

I too posted a defence of sorts in response to Joe's article which was moderated out of existence, but to be fair, he did email me to explain why. And I must say that his blog, as well as James Allen's, are both proving to be very good reads. To be fair to Joe, it is true that those with insider knowledge and contacts will be able to produce better quality pieces a lot of the time, but I still think there is space for a well-informed fan to throw his tuppence into the ring.

Another blog I read from time to time - and which appears to have come back to life after a long period of 'down time' is Neil's 'Fastest Lap' - good coverage of motorsport beyond the world of F1...
Date Added: 17/03/2009

Clive
That's good news, Patrick - the Fastest Lap used to be on my regular tour but I dropped it after the updates stopped coming. I must have a look and catch up!
Date Added: 17/03/2009

Arnet
It's been fascinating to follow this latest wave of opinion rippling through the F1 blogoshphere. I personally have had no reason to have a beef with GMM. I only read it through Keith's excellent site and rarely click on a story, just scan it through my RSS feeder. What is important to me is that we in this community are free to express our opinions about such issues, and I just found one of my posts at Joe Saward's blog rejected because I referred to Bernie and Max as idiots in regards to this latest points fiddling. Joe emailed me and asked me to "moderate" my opinion. What rubbish. I will not moderate my views for him or anyone else, and that's what I love about blogging: it is opinion and facts, shared freely and without fear of being sued for libel, which Joe apparently is. I'll not be posting there at all, although I respect his work greatly. It just isn't a community I care to be a part of. Thanks for encouraging the free flow of ideas and opinions, Clive and I'll include Keith and Ollie and the rest of the excellent bloggers in there too. Of course it's important to get facts straight, but it's equally important to be free to say what we think.
Date Added: 18/03/2009

Clive
Interesting points, Arnet, with which I tend to agree. I shall continue to attempt to post at Joe's blog, however, as I think we should be forgiving to those new to the culture of the blogosphere. Joe probably has more to fear from libel suits than us because he has a more prominent position - his position on comments is understandable, therefore.
Date Added: 18/03/2009