Are Future Publishing part of cycling;s current problems?

vermooten

The always-wonderful cyclingfansanonymous suggests that it must be hard to get to the truth: http://cyclingfansanonymous.blogspot.co ... iders.html

Consider also that one single company, Future Publishing, currently owns and controls the content of Procycling, Cycling Plus, Cyclingnews.com, and BikeRadar.com. Just between Cyclingnews.com and Procycling, you have two sources that can form the sum total of what some cycling fans read. So let's say that Cyclingnews.com or Procycling make a decision to kill a certain story, due either to the fact that it would anger a big advertiser or due to the equally problematic issue that it could make the reporter of the story too unpopular with riders or managers that he or she needs as sources. You, the reader, are maybe never going to hear about this story, unless perhaps it is picked up by an independent news source or one of the newspaper reporters who seem to have far more independence. (It is no coincidence that David Walsh works for a large newspaper, not a cycling magazine.) Most specialized cycling journalists live a constant impossible balancing act of trying to stay on the good side of all the riders and teams, yet still trying to report honestly and thoroughly. Despite any given journalist's best intentions, this naturally leads to far less investigative reports on the tough issues than the sport desperately needs.

We know that reviews of equipment and bikes etc are skwewed towards the advertisers - that's the way of the world so you can't read much into a bike review apart from admiring the pictures - and I don't suppose that the journos can be too pushy with the truth either for the reasons stated. Kinda like Lance freezing out journalists who went off-message.

Personally I like Procycling - despite the recent-ish makeover - and cyclingnews.com

Any thoughts?

RichN95.

It's not the cycling media - all of the media works like that. David Walsh (mentioned in the article) could write a smoking gun piece on Chinese doping prior to the next Olympics - but if Rupert Murdoch is doing business with the Chinese government, the Sunday Times aren't going to print it.

jimmythecuckoo

I think most people accept that the news they are fed is "massaged" or "managed" in some way.

I wouldn't point the finger at Future any more than anyone else.

Jeff Jones

The big newspapers could investigate football a lot more than they do...

There are a couple of reasons why special interest publications don't do investigative reporting. Mainly, they don't have the resources. You need deep pockets to fund the inevitable legal bills, especially in the UK where libel suits tend to favour the claimant.

Also, a lot of cycling fans don't want to read about doping, so we hurt ourselves by reporting it (that doesn't stop us). It's a different for a newspaper, which can get mileage out of a scandal without turning off its readers.

As far as the interaction between editorial and advertising goes, it happens but not as much as you would think. Future's editorial and advertising depts are separate and we base our editorial on what we hope will serve the readers best, not the advertisers.

vermooten

Good points all, and perhaps taking the quote out of context makes it seem more accusatory than it actually is.

Andy

off the back

What happens if Procycling is getting €X,000 to advertise a frame by a company and the pros racing them all say they are muck ...?! Does that go unreported.
Or what if Procycling reporter found that a rider used to endorse a lung improvment device never used it ever - would they pull the ad or report that they never used it.

I think there will always be some compramise by a publisher. A newspaper editor told me you will rarely see bad review of music concerts in the papers as they make so much on advertising concerts!

I like procycling (I would give it the edge over Cycle Sport) but the more competition the better.

drenkrom

It's also up to the consumers of cycling media (us!) to call the media on its BS if any ever surfaces. Cycling media has been pretty exempt from any big controversy, but other media niches tell us that if a corporate entity steps in to silence writers, people will call them on it.

As an example, as a sound engineer I work in the gaming business from time to time, and a huge controversy was raised when Gamespot fired one of their reviewers for giving an honest (and sobering) review of a game that advertised massively on the website. What ensued was a righteous uprising of the mass of readers. Advertisers pulled out overnight, any community site that linked to Gamespot removed the links... an online rebellion in full-swing. Seeing the level of fanaticism we often display on here, I don't for a minute doubt the same kind of results would ensue in the cycling media world. Corporate entities have every power that enables them to interfere in editorial matters, but if that info ever gets out, they risk losing a lot more than the few advertising dollars they were trying to salvage. Mass media can get away with this kind of thing, but any media catering to a fanatical niche would be ill-advised to do anything shady. Because if we find out... :twisted:

off the back

"if we find out.."

There you have it. Advertisers pay money in and readers also pay money in. So it is a comprimise to try and keep both happy. Stray to far either way and pay back - they loose money!

I defo think that the media was too cosy with Lance and other leading riders during the last 10years. A couple of years ago an Irish soccer manager refused to take any questions from a journalist at a press conference becuase of a difference of opinion. The journalists all protested and said that unless he accepted the right of the journalist to be there and ask questiosn they would walk out. What would happen if a major rider said he would refuse to talk to Procycling if a certain issue was raised ...?

My view on this is people want the truth - give the public the truth and let them decide. This means asking the questions of public interest, not shying away from contreversory or difficult questions, but not prying into private lives of cyclists. We rely on media to get us the truth and not sensationalise it. Speaking of which I think the cycling media does a good job on not printing gossip/sensational stories - I just hope they do a good enough job in chasing the truth!

Martin Van Nostrand

Any media is fallible, and anyone getting news from media needs think critically and get many sources. Any media is manipulated.

Procycling's report on corrupt cycling doctors was good last month -but where was this report in 1999-2005?