Cyclo Cross National Champs...? A question for BR Editorial

Pseudonym

I may have missed something, but is there any reason why you have two stories on your news pages reporting on the USA National CX champs - but nothing about the UK nationals, which took place yesterday..??

I'm not after the results - I already know them. It's the editorial policy issue that I'm interested in...

Pseudonym

Four hours later.....nothing...

This forum is called 'Discuss the website with the team'...

Come on 'team' - it's a simple enough question - the longer you ignore it, the worse it looks.....

t.m.h.n.e.t

nicklouse has misplaced his little book of excuses

Pseudonym

I don't think this is Mr Louse's department, to be fair. It does seem like the editorial team are all hiding under their hot-desks though....

Pseudonym

23 hours and counting....

Pseudonym

ironically, this seems to be the only forum on the site where 'the team' are not interested in discussing anything...

supersonic

Give them time. I can't answer it for you, I think our site ed may be away, but I'll draw atention to this.

jamescw

Hi Pseudonym,

Here at BikeRadar we specialise in product news and reviews. Our sister site Cyclingnews covers the racing side of things, and has indeed reported from the British CX champs:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/britis ... ships-2012

We tend to only cover the biggest international races here on BikeRadar (ie. Olympics, Classics, Worlds, MTB World Cup), and even then the articles are republished from Cyclingnews.

So why did we publish a short report on the US CX champs? Because one of our staff did well in the racing, and because we wanted to give some context to the technical articles he'd filed from the event, which is much larger than the British champs.

Hope this explains things,

James

PS. If you want a quick answer to a question, it's best to PM or email us.

Pseudonym

As I feared James, that doesn't really answer the question.

Firstly, I know that Cyclingnews has the results, indeed it is carrying the results for most of the european events which took place over the weekend. It wouldn't be much of a news site if it didn't.

Nor do I have a problem with BR bigging-up the results of one of it's own staffers - I've read a few similar items on Jeff previously. My problem is not with the story on Matt Pacocha, it is with the other one. My problem is with the apparent favouring of reporting on Jeremy Powers' win in the US (as you say, his first national title) - whilst seemingly completely ignoring Ian Field's result in the UK - which incidentally was HIS first national title as well.

It is the blatant US bias (on - I believe - a mainly UK-supported site) that I am confused by. That's the original question, which I'm still waiting for an answer on. Why report on the US nationals, while completely ignoring the UK event..?? Also, I'm a bit confused by your reference to the 'size' of the event - size in what sense..? The size of the country it is being held in..?? These are national championship events - are we to assume that the US is more important because the land mass is bigger..?

I'd like to continue the dialogue publicly if that's ok - I would hope that other people would be interested in this issue too...

jamescw

As explained above, we normally only cover major international events, not national championships. However, as one of our staff was racing at the event it made sense for him to report on some of the new bikes and gear on show there. To put his articles in context, we decided to run a short piece on the US CX results. Was this the right decision? Maybe, maybe not.

No one on our UK team rides 'cross so we didn't have anyone racing at the UK champs. If we had, we would have treated the event similarly.

As for the 'larger' comment, 'cross is enjoying an explosion in popularity in the US. That means there are lots of big-name teams at the races and lots of companies developing bikes and equipment specifically for the US market. It's this new technology that's BikeRadar's bread and butter and it's not on display to a similar extent at the UK champs.

Pseudonym

Like I said in the first post - my question related to the editorial policy as opposed to the availability of results, or which types of technology you report on. You seem to have just confirmed that you don't actually have an editorial policy - or certainly not one that you feel is worth keeping to, anyway...

I never expected to come on here and read about the UK CX results, but then I never expected to read about the USA CX results either, for the same reason. However, I do think that whoever decided it was a good idea to publish the US report while completely ignoring your own domestic championships should be deeply embarrassed. Sadly, I expect they probably couldn't give a stuff....

Jeff Jones

Hi Pseudonym,

James has outlined the editorial policy with regard to race coverage twice. Occasionally we make exceptions to this, which I believe we're allowed to do (we're not forcing you to read it after all). Traffic figures usually give us an idea of whether it was worth doing or not.

Pseudonym

Traffic figures would also have told you if it might have been worth adding a story on the UK champs too - if only for the sake of balance. Opportunity missed, I guess - if only someone had thought of it earlier.....

Your editorial policy is not to cover national champs, which is fine - I already get that. A staffer doing well in a national champ might explain why you ran a story on Matt Pacocha, which is fair enough. It doesn't explain why you also ran a separate story reporting on Jeremy Powers winning the US nationals, to the exclusion of all other national champs, including your own. That's the bit I'm still having trouble with - and the only answer you can give me is "if you don't like it, don't read it"...?? Is that really the best you can do..??

Incidentally, you ran an interview with Ian Field back in October, where he discussed his hopes for winning the UK title and the fact that he was also doing a lot of racing in the US. I would have thought that might have warranted a re-visit, given his success at the weekend and your single-minded pursuit of all things states-side. Ironically, you did cover the results of the 2010 British Championships on your news pages (in apparent contravention of your editorial policy), despite James' earlier contention that you do not cover UK events unless you have a rider on the start line. You also used to run a weekly UK CX race round-up, as I recall. Consistency..?? What's that..?

The inescapable conclusion here is that you made an error of judgement and balance - but I doubt if you'll ever admit to that, despite the fact that it is staring everyone (including you, I would imagine) in the face....

Jeff Jones

Editorial policies don't have to be set in stone, especially not on websites. BikeRadar's remit is to write about bike related stuff that we know or think people might be interested in. If they're not interested, then it's not worth our while doing it. Not even for the sake of consistency. We don't always nail it but that's what publishing is about. You have to try different things to see what works. With that in mind, I'll certainly review the figures from the US champs to see if it's worth doing again.

We used to cover a lot more UK racing (yep, including lots of UK 'cross) but not nearly enough people were interested in reading about it so we stopped.

Pseudonym

Jeff Jones wrote:

BikeRadar's remit is to write about bike related stuff that we know or think people might be interested in

so on a site owned by a UK-based publisher, with a predominantly UK-centric readership, you felt more people would be interested in reading about the US champs than the UK champs, correct..?

Jeff Jones wrote:

With that in mind, I'll certainly review the figures from the US champs to see if it's worth doing again.

it would only be worth reviewing the figures if you have something to compare them to - like a story on the UK champs. Otherwise, the data will tell you nothing.

Jeff Jones wrote:

We used to cover a lot more UK racing (yep, including lots of UK 'cross) but not nearly enough people were interested in reading about it so we stopped.

If not enough people are interested in CX, why run stories like this one here: http://www.bikeradar.com/blog/article/b ... ross-32277

"Bikeradar heart cyclocross", but only if you're an American reader, apparently. How many of them are there anyway..?

I'm not anti-American by the way - I'm just anti double standards. Talking of which, I notice that both winners in the mens/womens US champs were on cantis - which does kind of make a mockery of all BR's rampant pro-disk articles we've been suffering over the last few months. But I guess that's another story....literally. I won't hold my breath for that one either....

Jeff Jones

BR is owned by a UK company but has a large US readership and an editorial team in the US, whose editor sets the agenda and tone for what gets covered. There are some differences between the interests of readers of the two countries and our coverage reflects that. Double standards is a bit harsh - what doesn't work in the UK might well in the US and vice versa.

As for discs vs cantis, I'm sure we'll revisit that debate

Pseudonym

thanks for your replies Jeff. 'Double standards' was probably a bit harsh, but I do feel there's a bit of a 'disconnect' here. Anyway, it sounds like you're aware of the issues, which is encouraging....