Pitpass credibility at risk of further erosion
CatharticF1
Scoop or Madness?
13/12/2009
In the wake of the Motor Sport Business Forum conducted this week in
Monte Carlo, Pitpass has received a communiqu� from someone calling
themselves, Lord Radcliffe of Oxford.
Radcliffe was at the conference and so well connected as to have spying
dinner meetings which support the information offered. That said, the
information he has offered us borders on the fantastic. Radcliffe is
either a genius or madman, nonetheless, it's still worth repeating�
In deference to what are thought to be done deals, Radcliffe is claiming
that Nico Rosberg is set to partner Jarno Trulli at Lotus while Kimi
Raikkonen is set join Williams. WE have asked if he meant Nico Hulkenberg
leaving Williams to make way for Raikkonen but he insists that it is
Rosberg heading to Lotus.
In support of reports already in the public domain but unsubstantiated,
he also claims Genii Capital, owned by Luxembourg businessman Gerard
Lopez, is undertaking due diligence this week with a view to buying a 75%
stake in the Renault F1 Team.
Rosberg is currently signed with Mercedes, however, with continued
speculation linking Michael Schumacher with the Brackley-based team, many
have been wondering how the young German might react should the seven-
time champion be brought in to partner him. As for Raikkonen, it has
already been announced that the Finn is to compete in the WRC with
Citroen.
Lotus is scheduled to make an announcement regarding its line-up tomorrow
(Monday), team principal Tony Fernandes making the announcement on
Twitter.
Writing on Friday evening following the FIA Awards Gala, Fernandes wrote:
"Bringing home two drivers for the Lotus F1 team. Announcement Monday".
If these bombshells are accurate, you read it first here. If not, we did
say madman�
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was freedom is just greed."
Chad
> http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=39673
>
> Scoop or Madness?
>
Desperate for content, so fuck journalistic integrity.
--
Chad
Bob Dubery
> http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=39673
>
> Scoop or Madness?
>
> 13/12/2009
>
> In the wake of the Motor Sport Business Forum conducted this week in
> themselves, Lord Radcliffe of Oxford.
>
> Radcliffe was at the conference and so well connected as to have spying
> dinner meetings which support the information offered. That said, the
> information he has offered us borders on the fantastic. Radcliffe is
> either a genius or madman,
Or somebody emailing crap to on-line periodicals to see who bites.
Or an invention of pitpass.
And they list this under "news". So it's not an opinion piece.
Clearly checking sources is not part of whatever passes for
journalistic rigour at Pitpass.
Bob Dubery
> In deference to what are thought to be done deals, Radcliffe is claiming
> that Nico Rosberg is set to partner Jarno Trulli at Lotus while Kimi
> Raikkonen is set join Williams.
In the meantime Lotus have announced Trulli and Kovalainen. I suppose
one Finn is pretty much the same as another.
Bigbird
Even if he's German?
--
Bigbird
#
You'll be laughing when I'm dead!
Bigbird
> http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=39673
>
> Scoop or Madness?
>
Seems you're upset. Did you fall for it?
AC
"CatharticF1" <rasf1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE19E688A9AFr...@203.26.24.228...
> http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=39673
>
> Scoop or Madness?
>
> 13/12/2009
>
> In the wake of the Motor Sport Business Forum conducted this week in
> Monte Carlo, Pitpass has received a communiqu� from someone calling
> themselves, Lord Radcliffe of Oxford.
>
> Radcliffe was at the conference and so well connected as to have spying
> dinner meetings which support the information offered. That said, the
> information he has offered us borders on the fantastic. Radcliffe is
>
> In deference to what are thought to be done deals, Radcliffe is claiming
> that Nico Rosberg is set to partner Jarno Trulli at Lotus while Kimi
> Raikkonen is set join Williams. WE have asked if he meant Nico Hulkenberg
> leaving Williams to make way for Raikkonen but he insists that it is
> Rosberg heading to Lotus.
>
> In support of reports already in the public domain but unsubstantiated,
> he also claims Genii Capital, owned by Luxembourg businessman Gerard
> Lopez, is undertaking due diligence this week with a view to buying a 75%
> stake in the Renault F1 Team.
>
> Rosberg is currently signed with Mercedes, however, with continued
> speculation linking Michael Schumacher with the Brackley-based team, many
> have been wondering how the young German might react should the seven-
> time champion be brought in to partner him. As for Raikkonen, it has
> already been announced that the Finn is to compete in the WRC with
> Citroen.
>
> Lotus is scheduled to make an announcement regarding its line-up tomorrow
> (Monday), team principal Tony Fernandes making the announcement on
> Twitter.
>
> Writing on Friday evening following the FIA Awards Gala, Fernandes wrote:
> "Bringing home two drivers for the Lotus F1 team. Announcement Monday".
>
> If these bombshells are accurate, you read it first here. If not, we did
>
> --
> CatharticF1
>
> "What you thought was freedom is just greed."
>
Why would Rosberg leave Brawn/Merc for this Lotus thing?
Yeah, I could see MS signing up, I could see Kimi having an F1 get out
clause, I could see money sloshing about to get he "right" drivers in the
"right" cars, but I cant see Rosberg accepting a shove to Lotus. And I cant
see any young pretender being scared off by MS, unless the team told him
that MS would have the team, and he gets what ever scraps are left. But
Lotus? Ouch.
AC
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 7:34 am, CatharticF1 <rasf1pos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In deference to what are thought to be done deals, Radcliffe is
> > > claiming that Nico Rosberg is set to partner Jarno Trulli at Lotus
> > > while Kimi Raikkonen is set join Williams.
> > In the meantime Lotus have announced Trulli and Kovalainen. I suppose
> > one Finn is pretty much the same as another.
>
> Even if he's German?
Err..... ahhmmmm.......
build
beers,
build
Bigbird
> How can they risk something they do not have?
>
Why are people in glasshouses always first to reach for a stone.
Bob Dubery
> build wrote:
> > How can they risk something they do not have?
>
> Why are people in glasshouses always first to reach for a stone.
Well there's the thing. People who try to apply logic and try to
establish facts get short thrift whereas people who specialise in
imaginative cobblers couched in floral terms are admired.
I used to like Pitpass, but they're going down hill. They are courting
an audience who like conspiracy theories and imaginative cobblers and
who don't ask too many questions. They'll court that audience, they'll
get a cheer (because they're giving that audience what they want to
hear), and I suppose all that's fine as long as we don't regard it as
journalism.
News
Globally, pretty well defines anything Murdoch, and much of the rest.
AC
"Bob Dubery" <mega...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dbd57f0-d073-4e6c...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Shirley its a question of what Pitpass wants to sell its self as. If its
sold as dealing with the wacky market, and really goes for it, then I have
no problem. Its its pretending to be hard cold serious news, then that's
naughty.
AC
Bigbird
Pitpass are well known for having a strong bias wrt certain stories.
They don't even bother to dress it up as journalism very often. IMO
this simply makes them a bit more like us or the bloke down the pub
except generally, if not in this case, better informed.
IMO it's better than being boring and only repeating the dull and
predictable press releases that many sites have been doing for the last
couple of months.
This is what they have done here. They have clearly said this may be
bollocks, you know that and we know that (most of us know that they
know that), but at least it's not another corporate press release.
That it is Brenda and build that failed to read the blatant signals
just adds to the irony.
Bob Dubery
> This is what they have done here. They have clearly said this may be
> bollocks, you know that and we know that (most of us know that they
> know that), but at least it's not another corporate press release.
That makes no sense - unless they want to be regarded not as a serious
news site but as a purveyor of bollocks. They've gone in for jokes and
satire before, but it's usually been clear that that's what it is.
They could be trolling but that will only get them a reputation as
trolls.
With the date not being April 1 this makes little sense. It's not even
particularly funny. They're also making the point that if it is
bollocks it's not their bollocks.
Bigbird
> On Dec 14, 3:00�pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is what they have done here. They have clearly said this may be
> > bollocks, you know that and we know that (most of us know that they
> > know that), but at least it's not another corporate press release.
> That makes no sense - unless they want to be regarded not as a serious
> news site but as a purveyor of bollocks. They've gone in for jokes and
> satire before, but it's usually been clear that that's what it is.
>
"Scoop or Madness?
In the wake of the Motor Sport Business Forum conducted this week in
Monte Carlo, Pitpass has received a communiqu� from someone calling
themselves, Lord Radcliffe of Oxford.
Radcliffe was at the conference and so well connected as to have spying
dinner meetings which support the information offered. That said, the
information he has offered us borders on the fantastic. Radcliffe is
either a genius or madman, nonetheless, it's still worth repeating�
If not, we did say madman�"
Perhaps too subtle for you without a flashing red sign.
> They're also making the point that if it is
> bollocks it's not their bollocks.
Now you make no sense. You admit that they admit it may be bollocks,
yet you claim it not clear it may be bollocks.
You are a victim of your own desire to be contradictory.
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 3:00 pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is what they have done here. They have clearly said this may be
> > > bollocks, you know that and we know that (most of us know that they
> > > know that), but at least it's not another corporate press release.
> > That makes no sense - unless they want to be regarded not as a serious
> > news site but as a purveyor of bollocks. They've gone in for jokes and
> > satire before, but it's usually been clear that that's what it is.
>
> "Scoop or Madness?
>
> In the wake of the Motor Sport Business Forum conducted this week in
> themselves, Lord Radcliffe of Oxford.
>
> Radcliffe was at the conference and so well connected as to have spying
> dinner meetings which support the information offered. That said, the
> information he has offered us borders on the fantastic. Radcliffe is
> either a genius or madman, nonetheless, it's still worth repeating…
>
> If not, we did say madman…"
>
> Perhaps too subtle for you without a flashing red sign.
>
> > They're also making the point that if it is
> > bollocks it's not their bollocks.
>
> Now you make no sense. You admit that they admit it may be bollocks,
> yet you claim it not clear it may be bollocks.
Publishing this article makes no sense unless
a) They had a very liquid christmas lunch
b) They are trolling
It's not a joke (at least not a funny one), and having put it forwards
they then wash their hands of it straight away.
Got an explanation as to why they actually bothered publishing this?
Bigbird
> On Dec 14, 3:39�pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bob Dubery wrote:
> > > On Dec 14, 3:00�pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > This is what they have done here. They have clearly said this
> > > > may be bollocks, you know that and we know that (most of us
> > > > know that they know that), but at least it's not another
> > > > corporate press release.
> > > That makes no sense - unless they want to be regarded not as a
> > > serious news site but as a purveyor of bollocks. They've gone in
> > > for jokes and satire before, but it's usually been clear that
> > > that's what it is.
> >
> > "Scoop or Madness?
> >
> > In the wake of the Motor Sport Business Forum conducted this week in
> > Monte Carlo, Pitpass has received a communiqu� from someone calling
> > themselves, Lord Radcliffe of Oxford.
> >
> > Radcliffe was at the conference and so well connected as to have
> > spying dinner meetings which support the information offered. That
> > said, the information he has offered us borders on the fantastic.
> > Radcliffe is either a genius or madman, nonetheless, it's still
> > worth repeating�
> >
> > If not, we did say madman�"
> >
> > Perhaps too subtle for you without a flashing red sign.
> >
> > > They're also making the point that if it is
> > > bollocks it's not their bollocks.
> >
> > Now you make no sense. You admit that they admit it may be bollocks,
> > yet you claim it not clear it may be bollocks.
> No. Read what I said. I said they're saying it's not THEIR bollocks.
>
> Publishing this article makes no sense unless
> a) They had a very liquid christmas lunch
> b) They are trolling
>
They hear a rumour, they publish it saying here's a silly rumour.
It's words on a page. It's of general interest and presented as no more
than gossip.
I don't know why you struggle to see it for what it is.
There is a whole industry, I'm thinking especially of womens magazines
that exists on such rubbish.
> It's not a joke (at least not a funny one), and having put it forwards
> they then wash their hands of it straight away.
>
> Got an explanation as to why they actually bothered publishing this?
See above...
...no really. I have already answered this question.
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 3:39 pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Bob Dubery wrote:
> > > > On Dec 14, 3:00 pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > This is what they have done here. They have clearly said this
> > > > > may be bollocks, you know that and we know that (most of us
> > > > > know that they know that), but at least it's not another
> > > > > corporate press release.
> > > > That makes no sense - unless they want to be regarded not as a
> > > > serious news site but as a purveyor of bollocks. They've gone in
> > > > for jokes and satire before, but it's usually been clear that
> > > > that's what it is.
>
> > > "Scoop or Madness?
>
> > > In the wake of the Motor Sport Business Forum conducted this week in
> > > themselves, Lord Radcliffe of Oxford.
>
> > > Radcliffe was at the conference and so well connected as to have
> > > spying dinner meetings which support the information offered. That
> > > said, the information he has offered us borders on the fantastic.
> > > Radcliffe is either a genius or madman, nonetheless, it's still
> > > worth repeating…
>
> > > If not, we did say madman…"
>
> > > Perhaps too subtle for you without a flashing red sign.
>
> > > > They're also making the point that if it is
> > > > bollocks it's not their bollocks.
>
> > > Now you make no sense. You admit that they admit it may be bollocks,
> > > yet you claim it not clear it may be bollocks.
> > No. Read what I said. I said they're saying it's not THEIR bollocks.
>
> > Publishing this article makes no sense unless
> > a) They had a very liquid christmas lunch
> > b) They are trolling
>
> They hear a rumour, they publish it saying here's a silly rumour.
>
> It's words on a page. It's of general interest and presented as no more
> than gossip.
>
> I don't know why you struggle to see it for what it is.
>
> There is a whole industry, I'm thinking especially of womens magazines
> that exists on such rubbish.
I think you're right. But if that's what they are then they're going
to run into a credibility problem. They're bringing themselves down to
National Enquirer level.
CatharticF1
@news.individual.net:
> CatharticF1 wrote:
>
>> http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=39673
>>
>> Scoop or Madness?
>>
>
> Seems you're upset. Did you fall for it?
None if any of it seems intuitively likely to happen so as a whole it's
plain nonsense. It's more annoying that it's presented as it is, this
really belongs in a forum posted by some breathless child.
CatharticF1
news:xn0giw3qu...@news.individual.net:
> Bob Dubery wrote:
>
>> On Dec 14, 3:00�pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This is what they have done here. They have clearly said this may be
>> > bollocks, you know that and we know that (most of us know that they
>> > know that), but at least it's not another corporate press release.
>> That makes no sense - unless they want to be regarded not as a serious
>> news site but as a purveyor of bollocks. They've gone in for jokes and
>> satire before, but it's usually been clear that that's what it is.
>>
>
> "Scoop or Madness?
>
> In the wake of the Motor Sport Business Forum conducted this week in
> Monte Carlo, Pitpass has received a communiqu� from someone calling
> themselves, Lord Radcliffe of Oxford.
>
> Radcliffe was at the conference and so well connected as to have spying
> dinner meetings which support the information offered. That said, the
> information he has offered us borders on the fantastic. Radcliffe is
> either a genius or madman, nonetheless, it's still worth repeating�
>
> If not, we did say madman�"
>
> Perhaps too subtle for you without a flashing red sign.
I don't think that's OK though. If this were on the BBC homepage, or on
the backpage of The Times you may see it differently. It's either
credible and presented as 'news' or it's not. The idea that you can be
wildy speculative and have a bet each way hoping to explain it as a laugh
if it's wrong undermines their credibility. It's their purpose to
determine this to a reasonable extent before they present it.
Eventually (if not already) the 'news' you report becomes meaningless
because it's completely detached from fact. Then when Pitpass one day get
a scoop we're all going to ignore it and even after the fact shrug our
shoulders and say "Well - you yourselves said it was likely bollocks, so
you probably just got lucky."
Bob Dubery
In fact maybe it's worse. They want to print a rumour and say that
it's just a rumour and if none of it is true then we told you it's a
rumour.
That's dishonest. They could say "well we heard a rumour, from a
gentleman by the name of Lord Bob in South Africa, that RASF1 poster
'Big Bird' is on particularly intimate terms with several gerbils that
he keeps. If it's not true then we told you it's a rumour so don't
protest to us."
See how wriggly it is? They want to have their cake and eat it too.
"We'll print it, but hey we're not saying it's so."
I wonder, and this is just supposition on my part, if they're not
trying to create some kind of precedent here. They're going to set up
a pattern of printing unsubstantiable rumors and then run, for
example, a several thousand word report on how they have heard that
Jean Todt is taking backhanders from Bernie and then right at the end
they'll say "This is just a rumour we received via e-mail. We're not
saying it's true, it's just something we heard."
Then if the shit hits the fan they can say "well it was a rumour, we
said it was a rumour, and it's been our practice previously to publish
content that makes untestable allegations with the rider that it is a
rumour, no more."
Bob Dubery
> Then if the shit hits the fan they can say "well it was a rumour, we
> said it was a rumour, and it's been our practice previously to publish
> content that makes untestable allegations with the rider that it is a
> rumour, no more."
Which is a bit unkind from me, even if it's just speculation.
ric zito
Both you and Bigbird are right, here. Yet none of what you say alters
the fact that for me, Pitpass has become a shadow of its former self.
There was a time a few years back when I used to consider it one of the
best F1 sites, level-headed and trustworthy. Not any more, sadly.
--
ric
ric at pixelligence dot com
Bob Dubery
> Both you and Bigbird are right, here. Yet none of what you say alters
> the fact that for me, Pitpass has become a shadow of its former self.
> There was a time a few years back when I used to consider it one of the
> best F1 sites, level-headed and trustworthy. Not any more, sadly.
Yes. They do seem to be less than what they once were. I am struggling
to see the point of publishing some of what they publish.
It seems to me that the decline has been quite recent and sudden.
In a way it shouldn't be surprising. Sites like pitpass and
grandprix.com don't have obvious revenue streams. They seem more like
willing amateur fans. And it DOES cost money to run a reliable, good
quality publication - on-line or off-line.
Bigbird
> "Bigbird" <Bigbird.us...@Gmail.com> wrote in
> news:xn0givx5tb6xra8001 @news.individual.net:
>
> > CatharticF1 wrote:
> >
> >>
> http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=39673
> >> >> Scoop or Madness?
> >>
> >
> > Seems you're upset. Did you fall for it?
>
> None if any of it seems intuitively likely to happen so as a whole
> it's plain nonsense. It's more annoying that it's presented as it is,
> this really belongs in a forum posted by some breathless child.
So you're just upset they beat you to it. ;)
Bigbird
> On Dec 14, 11:35�pm, Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 6:47�pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I don't know why you struggle to see it for what it is.
> >
> > > There is a whole industry, I'm thinking especially of womens
> > > magazines that exists on such rubbish.
> >
> > I think you're right. But if that's what they are then they're going
> > to run into a credibility problem. They're bringing themselves down
> > to National Enquirer level.
>
> In fact maybe it's worse. They want to print a rumour and say that
> it's just a rumour and if none of it is true then we told you it's a
> rumour.
>
> That's dishonest. They could say "well we heard a rumour, from a
> gentleman by the name of Lord Bob in South Africa, that RASF1 poster
> 'Big Bird' is on particularly intimate terms with several gerbils that
> he keeps. If it's not true then we told you it's a rumour so don't
> protest to us."
>
> See how wriggly it is? They want to have their cake and eat it too.
> "We'll print it, but hey we're not saying it's so."
>
You have to be the most naive person on the planet.
The F1 press is constantly printing baseless rumours dressed up
stories. That pitpass has been honest about this being what it is has
totally thrown you.
> I wonder, and this is just supposition on my part, if they're not
> trying to create some kind of precedent here. They're going to set up
> a pattern of printing unsubstantiable rumors and then run, for
> example, a several thousand word report on how they have heard that
> Jean Todt is taking backhanders from Bernie and then right at the end
> they'll say "This is just a rumour we received via e-mail. We're not
> saying it's true, it's just something we heard."
>
> Then if the shit hits the fan they can say "well it was a rumour, we
> said it was a rumour, and it's been our practice previously to publish
> content that makes untestable allegations with the rider that it is a
> rumour, no more."
I think ITV have a page called the gravel trap. It's intended to be
amusing. It's not but that's beside the point. Anyone reading knows
what is intended. Pitpass have been just as clear. Now they can no more
be held at fault than if you take the Gravel Trap seriously.
Bigbird
Don't even pretend to comprehend the concept of credibility.
CatharticF1
news:xn0gixbtp...@news.individual.net:
I know, I know - my being right is just a combination or premature
biassed judgement and luck and you're being wrong is because you always
want to think the best of everyone.
Ha!
:)
Bob Dubery
> "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote innews:xn0gixbtp...@news.individual.net:
>> bollocks, so you probably just got lucky."
>
> > Don't even pretend to comprehend the concept of credibility.
>
> I know, I know - my being right is just a combination or premature
> biassed judgement and luck and you're being wrong is because you always
> want to think the best of everyone.
ROFL