Grand Prix dot com has a brief article about the possible death by damages of the magazine BusinessF1. I do not buy the magazine and have only ever read one (admittedly long) article from it. That was the one that claimed to know the inside story of Michael Schumacher's retirement; it was well written, very interesting and apparently authoritative but, since it came from a magazine that has had more than its fair share of libel suits against it, I took the article with a large pinch of salt.
Jaguar in F1
Now Tony Purnell, once head of the Jaguar F1 team, is petitioning the court to wind up BusinessF1 as he has not received payment of the enormous damages compensation awarded in a previous court case. And that makes me a little uneasy.
The magazine has long been detested amongst the F1 teams who say that it contains little but speculation and guesses masquerading as fact and its editor, Tom Rubython, has a history of losing libel cases against himself. But, even so, is it right that a dissenting voice should effectively be priced out of business by those it criticizes?
We are all aware that awards for damages these days are reaching ridiculous sums. It is all very well to talk of punitive damages but very often the amounts awarded bear no relation to any possible damage done by a few statements in a magazine that few read anyway (although I admit that the Ferrari story made its way around the internet and is the basis of many anti-Ferrari rants in forums). Perhaps we should also give some thought to the possibility that the law courts have become a convenient way for rich and powerful companies to silence those who point out uncomfortable issues.
I am not about to embark on a long discussion on the freedom of the press and its responsibilities as a result but, in this instance, the matter does affect the sport we care about. At a time when Renault are trying to demonstrate an openness to public scrutiny that is quite foreign to most F1 team cultures, it seems unfortunate that a magazine that has, at least, made us aware that we do not know as much about F1 as we might think, is going to the wall.
I know nothing about the original law suit between Purnell and Rubython; it may well be that Rubython deserves everything he was hit with in that case. But I do not like the idea that anyone who raises uncomfortable matters should be silenced by richer and more powerful interests. In fact, we need to recognize that the public are not quite so gullible as legend would have it; we do not necessarily believe everything we read (except in blogs, of course) and the damage caused by inaccurate reporting is often much less than claimed. There is even a case for saying that we need such wilder voices as BusinessF1, if only to remind F1 that we will speculate if they don't tell us the truth.
And that is the key, really. Renault's approach is laudable in that, by encouraging an open and honest atmosphere, they lessen the opportunities available to those sections of the media that would twist and pervert the truth. With the McLaren pit stop saga fresh in our minds, it has to be said that the whole forore about the alleged angry radio exchange between Hamilton and Ron Dennis could have been defused had the team made the tape public. As it is, doubts remain and will always do so.
It's a simple enough principle: the truth will out.
Jaguar in F1
Now Tony Purnell, once head of the Jaguar F1 team, is petitioning the court to wind up BusinessF1 as he has not received payment of the enormous damages compensation awarded in a previous court case. And that makes me a little uneasy.
The magazine has long been detested amongst the F1 teams who say that it contains little but speculation and guesses masquerading as fact and its editor, Tom Rubython, has a history of losing libel cases against himself. But, even so, is it right that a dissenting voice should effectively be priced out of business by those it criticizes?
We are all aware that awards for damages these days are reaching ridiculous sums. It is all very well to talk of punitive damages but very often the amounts awarded bear no relation to any possible damage done by a few statements in a magazine that few read anyway (although I admit that the Ferrari story made its way around the internet and is the basis of many anti-Ferrari rants in forums). Perhaps we should also give some thought to the possibility that the law courts have become a convenient way for rich and powerful companies to silence those who point out uncomfortable issues.
I am not about to embark on a long discussion on the freedom of the press and its responsibilities as a result but, in this instance, the matter does affect the sport we care about. At a time when Renault are trying to demonstrate an openness to public scrutiny that is quite foreign to most F1 team cultures, it seems unfortunate that a magazine that has, at least, made us aware that we do not know as much about F1 as we might think, is going to the wall.
I know nothing about the original law suit between Purnell and Rubython; it may well be that Rubython deserves everything he was hit with in that case. But I do not like the idea that anyone who raises uncomfortable matters should be silenced by richer and more powerful interests. In fact, we need to recognize that the public are not quite so gullible as legend would have it; we do not necessarily believe everything we read (except in blogs, of course) and the damage caused by inaccurate reporting is often much less than claimed. There is even a case for saying that we need such wilder voices as BusinessF1, if only to remind F1 that we will speculate if they don't tell us the truth.
And that is the key, really. Renault's approach is laudable in that, by encouraging an open and honest atmosphere, they lessen the opportunities available to those sections of the media that would twist and pervert the truth. With the McLaren pit stop saga fresh in our minds, it has to be said that the whole forore about the alleged angry radio exchange between Hamilton and Ron Dennis could have been defused had the team made the tape public. As it is, doubts remain and will always do so.
It's a simple enough principle: the truth will out.