F1 Racing Magazine
Discussion
Received my copy today. And in the editorial it staes they are not reporting on the Max Mosely affair, but will concentrate on the sport instead.
So they'll ignore the biggest story at Bahrain instead? Seem to recall they had a similar policy with the McLaren affair as well, just toe the FIA line.
The writers cannot call themselves journalists, they are sycophants and seem to be only interest in keeping their passes.
Time to cancel my subscription I think.
So they'll ignore the biggest story at Bahrain instead? Seem to recall they had a similar policy with the McLaren affair as well, just toe the FIA line.
The writers cannot call themselves journalists, they are sycophants and seem to be only interest in keeping their passes.
Time to cancel my subscription I think.
Thats a Bernie controlled publication.
Its a bit like the Daily Sport.. I would only buy it for the pictures which are good quality.
Your just buying Bernies PR... you should be paid to read it.
The magazine is distributed as a freebie in GP hospitality areas for high fliers and sponsors...
Its a bit like the Daily Sport.. I would only buy it for the pictures which are good quality.
Your just buying Bernies PR... you should be paid to read it.
The magazine is distributed as a freebie in GP hospitality areas for high fliers and sponsors...
Edited by mark69sheer on Saturday 19th April 10:25
A mixed picture, I'd say, but one that does no credit to F1 Racing.
F1 Racing is owned by Haymarket, which also owns Autosport and Pistonheads.
PH has been free of any censorship of or contrived diversions away from the Mosley stuff. Autosport - the website to some extent and moreso the magazine - has given the affair a reasonable amount of attention.
One does wish that one of them, or another publication, would do a proper analysis and investigation into the FIA's power structure, funding, and political connections. Perhaps that is in the offing somewhere. It is a subject that is begging for attention, as the events of the last few years have raised many fundamental but unanswered questions.
F1 Racing does disappoint this month. The editor at the minute is somebody named Hans Seeberg. If one is to judge from his photo in the magazine, he's about twelve years old, and thus perhaps one should not expect too much.
One of the lines from the lad's editorial piece this month:
Here at F1 Racing, we think you might be a bit bored of orgies too, so we've decided to give it all a miss and concentrate on what really matters: the sport.
Although F1 Racing has decided that a vicious and underhand power struggle over the global goverance of the sport is not worthy of their scrutiny, this month's issue does contain a lengthy article titled: Inside QPR with Flavio.
A good thing that they've chosen to "concentrate on what really matters".
F1 Racing is owned by Haymarket, which also owns Autosport and Pistonheads.
PH has been free of any censorship of or contrived diversions away from the Mosley stuff. Autosport - the website to some extent and moreso the magazine - has given the affair a reasonable amount of attention.
One does wish that one of them, or another publication, would do a proper analysis and investigation into the FIA's power structure, funding, and political connections. Perhaps that is in the offing somewhere. It is a subject that is begging for attention, as the events of the last few years have raised many fundamental but unanswered questions.
F1 Racing does disappoint this month. The editor at the minute is somebody named Hans Seeberg. If one is to judge from his photo in the magazine, he's about twelve years old, and thus perhaps one should not expect too much.
One of the lines from the lad's editorial piece this month:
Here at F1 Racing, we think you might be a bit bored of orgies too, so we've decided to give it all a miss and concentrate on what really matters: the sport.
Although F1 Racing has decided that a vicious and underhand power struggle over the global goverance of the sport is not worthy of their scrutiny, this month's issue does contain a lengthy article titled: Inside QPR with Flavio.
A good thing that they've chosen to "concentrate on what really matters".
flemke said:
...F1 Racing does disappoint this month. The editor at the minute is somebody named Hans Seeberg. If one is to judge from his photo in the magazine, he's about twelve years old, and thus perhaps one should not expect too much.
...
A quick google reveals the lad as one time Features Editor at "Max Power", and Deputy Editor at "Nuts"......
Methinks he would struggle to comment effectively such a political issue
tim the pool man said:
flemke said:
...F1 Racing does disappoint this month. The editor at the minute is somebody named Hans Seeberg. If one is to judge from his photo in the magazine, he's about twelve years old, and thus perhaps one should not expect too much.
...
A quick google reveals the lad as one time Features Editor at "Max Power", and Deputy Editor at "Nuts"......
It would make no sense to have someone whose background was in actual motor sport.
flemke said:
Although F1 Racing has decided that a vicious and underhand power struggle over the global goverance of the sport is not worthy of their scrutiny, this month's issue does contain a lengthy article titled: Inside QPR with Flavio.
A good thing that they've chosen to "concentrate on what really matters".
You really have to come on board, Flemke. Not only was it precise, well researched and to the point, is was so bA good thing that they've chosen to "concentrate on what really matters".
hy that it should be in a museum.Superb.
Edited by Derek Smith on Saturday 19th April 20:24
Derek Smith said:
You really have to come on board, Flemke. Not only was it precise, well researched and to the point, is was so bhy that it should be in a museum.
Superb.
I don't run this website and I can accept the rules are made by those who do and it's up to me to obey them or get off. However, I am surprised that a slang adjective (which means malicious, spiteful, ill tempered, but with overtones of "oo ah, get 'er" should be censored. It seems harmless enough to me but then I'm not Haymarket I suppose.hy that it should be in a museum.Superb.
flemke said:
A mixed picture, I'd say, but one that does no credit to F1 Racing.
One of the lines from the lad's editorial piece this month:
Here at F1 Racing, we think you might be a bit bored of orgies too, so we've decided to give it all a miss and concentrate on what really matters: the sport.
Although F1 Racing has decided that a vicious and underhand power struggle over the global goverance of the sport is not worthy of their scrutiny, this month's issue does contain a lengthy article titled: Inside QPR with Flavio.
A good thing that they've chosen to "concentrate on what really matters".
Have to say I won't be buying it anymore.One of the lines from the lad's editorial piece this month:
Here at F1 Racing, we think you might be a bit bored of orgies too, so we've decided to give it all a miss and concentrate on what really matters: the sport.
Although F1 Racing has decided that a vicious and underhand power struggle over the global goverance of the sport is not worthy of their scrutiny, this month's issue does contain a lengthy article titled: Inside QPR with Flavio.
A good thing that they've chosen to "concentrate on what really matters".
So, the machinations and maladministration of the most powerful man in F1 (well, second most if BCE gets his way) directly involved in the sporting and technical rules that create the very sport as we know it/ he wants it aren't anything to do with the sport?
How on earth can someone be so stupid as to write such garbage and yet get to the position of editor of F1 Magazine?
And then to contradict the very line with a feature on a football team . . . Unbelievable!
Edited by dgboxer123 on Saturday 14th June 19:21
The thing with commercial magazines and websites is that unless they provide insider insight into what is going on, there's little point in buying them. One has to accept that much of the magazine will be taken up with 'regulars' but there must be that little bit extra.
Most editors will fiercely defend their independence and then follow what the owners and advertisers dictate. It's a fact of life. They, the owners/advertisers, lay down the parameters and all an editor can do is flop about inside those barriers. Even the editorial has constraints on it.
If an editor is told by his bosses that he will not, for whatever reason, report on a particular story in depth then the best he can do is to put a brave face on it or suggest it’s his idea.
If an ‘incident’ occurs on the circuit then you can probably read 10,000 words on it from various points of view within ten minutes of the flag on various internet sites. A motorsport mag has got to compete with this information overload.
The odd thing is that one would have thought that Mosleygate is the perfect subject for them. People like us can only guess what the implications of a move or report are whereas if you are having tea with the person named you must have a better idea. So why not share it and sell a few issues?
Is it that they are frightened of taking sides? Are they worried for their press-passes?
The most fundamental single event to hit F1 in years and they don’t want to know. It’s difficult to understand why they went into motor sport journalism if it’s not to report on such things. Every magazine struggles for decent copy, especially between races, so something which they can produce in-house would seem to answer so many demands.
All very odd.
Most editors will fiercely defend their independence and then follow what the owners and advertisers dictate. It's a fact of life. They, the owners/advertisers, lay down the parameters and all an editor can do is flop about inside those barriers. Even the editorial has constraints on it.
If an editor is told by his bosses that he will not, for whatever reason, report on a particular story in depth then the best he can do is to put a brave face on it or suggest it’s his idea.
If an ‘incident’ occurs on the circuit then you can probably read 10,000 words on it from various points of view within ten minutes of the flag on various internet sites. A motorsport mag has got to compete with this information overload.
The odd thing is that one would have thought that Mosleygate is the perfect subject for them. People like us can only guess what the implications of a move or report are whereas if you are having tea with the person named you must have a better idea. So why not share it and sell a few issues?
Is it that they are frightened of taking sides? Are they worried for their press-passes?
The most fundamental single event to hit F1 in years and they don’t want to know. It’s difficult to understand why they went into motor sport journalism if it’s not to report on such things. Every magazine struggles for decent copy, especially between races, so something which they can produce in-house would seem to answer so many demands.
All very odd.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff