[Magazines] Autosport Magazine - Your Opinions (merged)

[Hip Priest]

Originally Posted by Ian Sowman

The Verstappen fan was talking about A1GP rather than GP2. We have to face facts - a large part of the 'fan base' enjoy the sport because of the dramatic crashes...

The possibility of an accident is part of what makes the sport exciting, but I can't understand why some fans enjoy watching crashes. I witnessed a fatal accident at my first ever event when I was 11, and I always feel physically unwell when I see a heavy shunt.

[Kicking-back]

Having been away on holiday, but aware of Michael Park's death - I sat down to look at the past couple of Autosports today.

On reflection I believe John was entirely correct to use the cover image selected.

It was sufficiently shocking to show the gravity of the situation - but not in anyway intrusive, graphic or tasteless.

A time like this is always difficult, but we must remember Autosport is first and foremost a news operation - not a sanitised PR vehicle for the motorsport industry.

The content of the issue was spot on - and the cover was a fair reflection of the tragedy without going too far.

[Graham Goodwin]

It takes all sorts I suppose - Personally I prefer tributes to draw on the positive aspects of a man's career, not to draw people to the mag through an image like that.

Shame though that John didn't feel able to print the letter I sent to him ref the cover - I'd have been quite happy for him to respond in print and to let the readers decide. But then again I suppose it's not exactly in their interest to fill the letters page with ex-readers telling them they've cancelled their subscriptions!

[Kicking-back]

To be fair, Graham, you do have a slight vested interest to hope people switch from Autosport to the internet for their motor racing news.

Does that affect your opinion?

Or would you like to see Autosport "improve" in your eyes?

[Graham Goodwin]

And that's exactly what I've said in several posts above - You shouldn't forget though that I'm also an almost lifelong Autosport reader who actually does care rather a lot about the sport, the image we all portray it in and the sort of coverage it gets.

In no small part the reason I do what I do with dsc is because I believe there isn't enough in-depth coverage of several areas of the sport, not just sportscar racing but very many others. What I write can (and sometimes does) attract criticism in the same way this has attracted comment to Autosport and I'm happy to listen to and take on board constructive comment.

You can see my criticisms in any way you choose mate but I can tell you this - If it had been the Times, The BBC or anyone else I'd have complained (Zoo or the Sun I could sort of understand using it) but it was Autosport. John comes onto these forums to respond to all sorts of points and I have chosen both to write to him personally and to express myself here on this one because I think there's an important principle here. That is - What is it, and what isn't it, acceptable to publish with commercial gain in mind.

Suffice to say that the comments I have made privately to John are somewhat more in-depth than those posted here.

[Kicking-back]

Autosport is a news magazine which covers motor-racing so should operate under the same ethics as the general news media.

How is the use of this picture - which does not show any detail of any injured/deceased persons - worse than the use of war reporting images which show bodies?

[Graham Goodwin]

Great, so by that reckoning you think we should have images of every wreck where someone has been killed? Hey it doesn't happen that often so it is news?!?

After all it's not likely that their family and friends will see it in this specialist interest mag - Oh wait, it's on the cover. Now why might that be? Surely not to attract plenty of passing interest from the more mawkish members of the public who will have already read in their daily papers of the fatal accident and might be morbidly curious to see just how bad a wreck it really was? Nope apparently it was in tribute to Michael! What a shame they ommitted to include his full name alongside it! This isn't about the heartfelt and well written tributes inside, it's about the imagery used to attract the public to the content of a flagship publication for our sport.

I'm happy to acknowledge that there are other opinions on this and I'm happy to hear your balancing comment but I will not accept that this was acceptable business practice from a magazine aimed not only at the fan market but at motorsport practitioners.

BTW, apropos nothing, a prominent contributor to the magazine independently offered their opinion to me that the cover was "Unforgivable" and his response to the supposition that it was not motivated by a wish to sell more copies but rather for "editorial" reasons really would fall outside the restrictions imposed by the rules of this forum.

In addition - It seems strange doesn't it that MN published a number of letters following their own use of a similar image, the majority critical of the decision. We are led to believe however tht the same was not true at Autosport - Hmmmm either they have a radically different reader profile or ...........................

[John McIlroy]

.....or what? I have explained the situation already. Graham's complaint was one of a handful that we received. We received at least the same amount of emails/letters complimenting us on the Michael Park tribute package/Markko Martin/David Evans obituary.

Autosport has printed non-graphic images of fatal incidents before, since they are invariably (and unfortunately) big news stories that week. Ayrton Senna's and Dale Earnhardt's accidents spring to mind. As I have stated here and elsewhere before, in this case several readers (and forum users) believe this image to be more graphic than we do, and have objected. Their objections have been duly noted.

Autosport's reader profile is different to that of Motorsport News, incidentally. But then, it shouldn't take much to work gem of information out anyway....

Regards to all,

John

[JimW]

John

Thanks for engaging with us here on this and other issues, it is much appreciated.

(For what it is worth, I rather tend to agree with your decision in this case and certainly don't believe that you would print such a pic thoughtlessly or without regards to the effect it might have.)

Regards

Jim

[John McIlroy]

Jim,

I have always considered web forums, and ten-tenths in particular, a home of reasoned debate. Even after the tragic events of Rally GB, most of the comments made here have been taken constructively.

I hope the next editor of Autosport will continue to engage in debate where possible. My own stint at the magazine should end within the next couple of months.

Regards to all,

John

[JimW]

Originally Posted by John McIlroy

Jim,

I have always considered web forums, and ten-tenths in particular, a home of reasoned debate. Even after the tragic events of Rally GB, most of the comments made here have been taken constructively.

I hope the next editor of Autosport will continue to engage in debate where possible. My own stint at the magazine should end within the next couple of months.

Regards to all,

John

Well good luck to you John, it was certainly during your time that I have been attracted back to being a regular Autosport buyer (after a gap of some years).

So where next? Keep us posted.

Regards

Jim

[Graham Goodwin]

As a matter of interest John - what were the cover photographs for the issues when Ayrton and Dale were killed?

[John McIlroy]

Ayrton was the aftermath of the crashed Williams - I remember that issue clearly from when I was a reader, in fact (surprised you can't).

Earnhardt was not a cover image - I'd have to hunt through the back issues to remember what the cover story was (think Dale was top strap, above the masthead, from memory) but a sequence was used inside.

Regards to all,

John

[jna]

Comment from an outsider, i.e. no links with motorsport, marshalling, the press, nor publishing.

I think by debating this issue at length you are compounding what this magazine initially set out to achieve, inasmuch as a little advertising, whether it's good or bad does no harm at all.

Leave it alone. You're all making things worse after a dreadful accident.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

Autosport is a news magazine which covers motor-racing so should operate under the same ethics as the general news media.

What, no ethics at all, you mean, K-b?

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

How is the use of this picture - which does not show any detail of any injured/deceased persons - worse than the use of war reporting images which show bodies?

It is, I agree, no worse, but that does not make it right - see above!

Originally Posted by John McIlroy

We received at least the same amount of emails/letters complimenting us on the Michael Park tribute package/Markko Martin/David Evans obituary.

Isn't that telling you something? As many were prepared to criticise the front cover as praise the contents. Printing one letter from each might have been appropriate. The fact is that for whatever reason you elected to use that front cover, you must have had an inkling that it would be contentious. Why do so knowing that it might offend the sensitivities (something we should all try to defend, in this ever more desensitised world) of some of your readers, unless, of course, it was to sell copy. I would hope that you would not be surprised at the criticism that it drew.

Originally Posted by John McIlroy

Autosport's reader profile is different to that of Motorsport News, incidentally. But then, it shouldn't take much to work gem of information out anyway....

I'm sure that is true, although many read both. In any event the editorial decision on this occasion was the same. The difference was that MsN printed a substantial number of letters in criticism in acknowledgment of the issue. I note that you had many less such responses, but I'd be interested to know how the reader profile of the two publications fits in with what appears to be a greater level of sensitivity shown by many of MsNs readers.

Originally Posted by John McIlroy

I have always considered web forums, and ten-tenths in particular, a home of reasoned debate. Even after the tragic events of Rally GB, most of the comments made here have been taken constructively.

I hope the next editor of Autosport will continue to engage in debate where possible. My own stint at the magazine should end within the next couple of months.

I agree with all those sentiments, John, and greatly respect the fact that you were prepared to address these issues in a publicly seen forum. I, too, wish you well in your next post, whatever that may be!

Originally Posted by jna

I think by debating this issue at length you are compounding what this magazine initially set out to achieve, inasmuch as a little advertising, whether it's good or bad does no harm at all.

Leave it alone. You're all making things worse after a dreadful accident.

I don't think you have thought that one through, jna, and are possibly missing the point. This is a forum for motorsport enthusiasts to discuss the events and issues that affect their sport, good or bad. It enables them to express their different views and ideals constructively. This particular issue is one that quite understandably has raised emotional, ethical and idealistic issues. Those who have objected to the front cover are acknowledging the sensitivity of this issue by saying that, in their view, Autosport stepped over their line of reasonable reporting into the world of sensationalism and bad taste. In general terms, if we are not allowed to express views publicly to try and influence the society of which we are part, then there are no constraints upon those making the decisions, whether it be in government, in business or, in this case, the media.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Isn't that telling you something? As many were prepared to criticise the front cover as praise the contents.

This is a little off topic and a general comment rather than trying to prove or disprove anything above: Letters of complaint are more likely than letters of praise. People find it easier to criticise as not only the mail bags prove but also the internet forums.

[Kicking-back]

Absolutely.

And letters of either sort are only a tiny proportion of readers of the magazine.

I imagine many readers will not have given the cover a moment's thought either for or against.

[jna]

Originally Posted by John Turner

I don't think you have thought that one through, jna, .

I have thought about it all through this debate, and I stand by what I say. It's been good for Autosport.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

This is a little off topic and a general comment rather than trying to prove or disprove anything above: Letters of complaint are more likely than letters of praise. People find it easier to criticise as not only the mail bags prove but also the internet forums.

Well why make the comment in the first place, then?

Originally Posted by jna

I have thought about it all through this debate, and I stand by what I say. It's been good for Autosport.

Fine, but that isn't all you said and it wasn't this comment that I was targeting. You said we should 'drop it', meaning the subject. So, I adhere also to my view; that you are missing the point!

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

I imagine many readers will not have given the cover a moment's thought either for or against.

Yep, sad isn't it? Rather proves my point about the desensitised society we live in.

[jna]

I don't understand the wink, but if it was added to gain the moral high ground, then go ahead and poke fun.

I say to you again that I found the debate on the forum, as it dragged on and on, as tasteless as the cover of the magazine and those who created it.

‘Ignore a bully’ is not the most apposite figure of speech for these circumstances, but I think you know exactly what I’m suggesting and with Autosport’s attitude in mind.

In closing, do you remember the Autosport edition following the one in which Ayrton Senna’s death was reported? No? Well it came with splash across the cover to advertise a free poster of him in his car. Cashing in? Hoping for a few more sales? Undeniable.

Cashing in this time? Irrefutable.

I’ll leave you to add another wink if you wish. I’m not prepared to say anymore about this sad affair.

[Kicking-back]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Yep, sad isn't it? Rather proves my point about the desensitised society we live in.

Yes.

Better someone looks, thinks and then decides to support it, or decides to oppose it.

Just having no thought is very apathetic.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by jna

I don't understand the wink, but if it was added to gain the moral high ground, then go ahead and poke fun.

I’ll leave you to add another wink if you wish. I’m not prepared to say anymore about this sad affair.

Missing the point again, I'm afraid. The wink was nothing to do with the moral high ground; it was an endeavour (obviously futile!) to keep this an amicable discussion. Since you clearly have failed to understand the point I expressed, earlier, or merely chosen to ignore it, I'll try to make it clearer. If we don't oppose those things we don't approve of, for good reason, we might as well give up. It's called freedom of speech, or democracy if you like. Basically, I don't want Autosport to make what I consider was a mistake or misjudgement again, and the only way to try to influence that is by stating so publicly. You also clearly object to what Autosport did, but by wishing to keep silent (although actually you haven't have you?) you are giving tacit support to it. However strongly held your views are, you cannot claim the moral high ground if you don't express those views and fight for them. In fact, your posts here are perplexing since they are a contradiction. You don't like what Autosport have done, clearly implying it was tasteless, yet because some of us have said virtually the same and endeavoured to engage Autosport on the matter, and censure them publicly, we are also being tasteless, by pursuing it.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

Yes.

Better someone looks, thinks and then decides to support it, or decides to oppose it.

Just having no thought is very apathetic.

Agreed, K-b!

[John Turner]

I suppose Autosport thought that the introduction of the 'f' word into an otherwise very interesting piece in this weeks issue would go unremarked upon. Thank you Anthony Rowlinson; I know it seems that half of Britain now uses this word as the most common adjective, as well as a verb and noun etc; I even use it myself under my breath or venting my anger when repairing my car (!), but printing it in your mag. just displays a further decline in standards. Add to that the political statement, not the first, of course, (whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant) on the back page 'rare view' has no place in a magazine reporting on Motor sport. Yes, reactionary, I maybe, but that doesn't invalidate the points. What really riles me, is that if I want a mag. telling me about the previous weeks motor sport, I can't vote with my feet, since there appears to be no alternative; it's even more impractical to keep MNs; and they come from the same publishing house, anyway.