L'equipe editoral policy

iainf72

Doesn't seem to bother Damien Ressiot

Main story on L'equipe is that Richard Gasquet is positive for ching.

leguape

iainf72 wrote:

Doesn't seem to bother Damien Ressiot

Main story on L'equipe is that Richard Gasquet is positive for ching.

The policy was they shouldn't go chasing speculative lines of inquiry. This looks like a regular, common or garden nailed on non-negative. And whodathunkit, man in Miami on the gak.

afx237vi

GASQUET CONTRÔLÉ POSITIF !

Loving the exclamation mark. High fives all round at L'Equipe HQ.

deal

while looking for the story on the bbc site (and failing) I noticed there was a video titled "Murray prepares for Gasquet test" which made me giggle a little

aurelio_-_banned

iainf72 wrote:

Doesn't seem to bother Damien Ressiot

Main story on L'equipe is that Richard Gasquet is positive for ching.

I had thought that the policy was more or less directed at not 'speculating' about Mr. Armstrong. After all, it was reported that the policy was the result of talks with the Amaury's by both Armstrong and his placemen in the UCI in anticipation of him riding the Tour.

leguape

aurelio wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Doesn't seem to bother Damien Ressiot

Main story on L'equipe is that Richard Gasquet is positive for ching.

I had thought that the policy was more or less directed at not 'speculating' about Mr. Armstrong. After all, it was reported that the policy was the result of talks with the Amaury's by both Armstrong and his placemen in the UCI in anticipation of him riding the Tour.

Er, wouldn't that be ASO not fouling their own doorstep? Their own audience research was telling them that persistent doping stories were damaging both L'Equipe and TDF brands wasn't it?

micron

Was it? Do you have a link to that as I'm certain Aurelio has a link to his information.

I think that argument is the one used by doping apologist the world over - isn't it Bruyneel/Verbruggen/McQuaid's argument rather than that of the Equipe editorial staff?

Kléber

The owner of ASO and Equipe Madame Amaury had apparently asked for the cycling pages to actually talk about cycling. Rest assured they are not turning a blind eye, the website has three "Cyclisme - Dopage" stories alongside four "Cyclisme - Giro" stories.

I listened to the Equipe-RTL cycling podcast and a while back they said they just wanted to be able to talk about cycling, it was more a desire to focus on the sport and to see the riders/teams clean up their act rather than to stick their heads in the sand. It is still a million miles from the "what doping?" attitude in most of the media, they are very alert.

leguape

micron wrote:

Was it? Do you have a link to that as I'm certain Aurelio has a link to his information.

I think that argument is the one used by doping apologist the world over - isn't it Bruyneel/Verbruggen/McQuaid's argument rather than that of the Equipe editorial staff?

I was asking the question, which is as obvious as it is justified. And I've read the letter from the journalists' union which Aurelio will cite, from the SDJ .

It was a political decision taken by ASO's new management making a rapprochement to the UCI after going against them last season. They got burnt twice off doping stories with Nadal and Barca/Real and from what I'd heard the excellent work of Ressiot and others wasn't building their numbers - decent investigative journalism rarely pays in the bottom line.

Why would you allow one part of your business, which is a small and localised one, to potentially undermine your biggest moneyspinner? Seriously, would you expect The Sun to start running pieces investigating some of Sky's allegedly dubious business practices?

To portray it as all one-way traffic from Armstrong and the UCI is just misleading. Marie-Odile Amaury and company are ultimately the ones who made the call, not Armstrong or Hein.

EDIT: And what Kleber said while I was typing.

micron

Just coincidence then that they 'made the call' following a meeting with Armstrong? And, yes, I would be delighted if the British media would pursue some decent investigative journalism for a change instead of reprinting press releases and twitter pronouncements as 'news' - the laziest and sloppiest kind of journalism.

Equipe has never been particularly top heavy with cycling doping stories - they happened to have one huge story, impeccably researched, that has been validated countless times subsequently. Clearly it suits some elements of the cycling fraternity to make sure that stories like that are silenced - the same elements who are interested in selling the sport to consortiums of millionaires who'll turn it into any other sport at the expense of its traditions and history.

leguape

micron wrote:

Just coincidence then that they 'made the call' following a meeting with Armstrong? And, yes, I would be delighted if the British media would pursue some decent investigative journalism for a change instead of reprinting press releases and twitter pronouncements as 'news' - the laziest and sloppiest kind of journalism.

Equipe has never been particularly top heavy with cycling doping stories - they happened to have one huge story, impeccably researched, that has been validated countless times subsequently. Clearly it suits some elements of the cycling fraternity to make sure that stories like that are silenced - the same elements who are interested in selling the sport to consortiums of millionaires who'll turn it into any other sport at the expense of its traditions and history.

The way I read it is that ASO seem to be obsessed with trying to grow their revenue from "growth markets" for their products so they can charge higher card rates to advertisers. Armstrong does well in those territories because he's been marketed as a global brand both by his own hand and by his backers at Nike who have done more than almost anyone to develop the Armstrong brand.

So between them they've come to the sort of mutually beneficial agreement that some might suggest makes the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact look honourable and decent.

aurelio_-_banned

leguape wrote:

... ASO seem to be obsessed with trying to grow their revenue from "growth markets" for their products so they can charge higher card rates to advertisers. Armstrong does well in those territories because he's been marketed as a global brand both by his own hand and by his backers at Nike who have done more than almost anyone to develop the Armstrong brand.

So between them they've come to the sort of mutually beneficial agreement that some might suggest makes the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact look honourable and decent.

Exactly so! The UCI have long shown a determination to protect Armstrong as their icon of 'global cycling'. Similarly, especially given the huge amount of money that has been spent developing 'the Armstrong brand', commercial interests are bound to see the financial benefits to be had from continuing to protect him.

Meanwhile, a few bits of 'speculative reporting' about dopers who don't have the brand value of Armstrong almost certainly helps to sell papers. And after all, those interested in preserving the 'omerta' have often claimed that a primary motivation of L'Equipe's coverage of doping in the past was the supposed fact that 'scandal sells'. To be fair, such a motivation might well play some role given that, according to the research Pierre Ballester did for his book ‘Tempetes sur la Tour’, 16% of bike fans in France follow the sport primarily for the doping scandals!

I would argue that such 'selective' reporting of doping stories is very unlikley to further damage the 'sport' or to cause L'Equipe to sell less copies. For one the fans are bright enough to know that doping has not gone away, and selectively reporting doping stories helps to create the ever popular 'Good guys vs. bad guys' story line. In fact the story-line that paints Armstrong as a whiter than white all-American saint taking on and beating a load of doped-up Europeans in their own back yard has been a central aspect of 'The Armstrong myth' from the start.

Not long ago I would have argued that the ASO were on the side of the 'good guys'. Now it seems that all the progress made was down to Patrice Clerk, and we all know what happened to him.

teagar

leguape wrote:

The way I read it is that ASO seem to be obsessed with trying to grow their revenue from "growth markets" for their products so they can charge higher card rates to advertisers. Armstrong does well in those territories because he's been marketed as a global brand both by his own hand and by his backers at Nike who have done more than almost anyone to develop the Armstrong brand.

So between them they've come to the sort of mutually beneficial agreement that some might suggest makes the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact look honourable and decent.

Erm, ignoring the slightly odd historical reference...

You can't really blame l'equipe for wanting to increase circulation. They need to increase circulation or else they won't exist anymore. You can blame the public for not wanting to hear the doping stories in the first place! Not l'equipe.