What is wrong with broadcast journalism

The scene: Tour de France, 23/07/2004.

The action: A bunch of small-time riders heads for the hills in the hope of
their 15 minutes of fame. One Filippo Simeoni, buried at the bottom of the
classification goes to join them. Lance Armstrong[The Man] follows Simeoni.
A note on etiquette he the leader doesn't get in on small-time breaks
because many riders need these little titbits. Lance and Fillippo ride up
to the group, which looks at Lance in horror. Their efforts will be for
nothing with him there. They tell him to go away. Lance tells them he'll
bugger off if Simeoni drops back as well. So what's going on?

Turns out that Simeoni is a whistleblower, who testified in some court that
Armstrong is on drugs. Of course we all know ths, but Armstrong called
Simeoni 'a liar' in Le Monde. Simeoni in turn is suing Armstrong for
defamation and loss of earnings etc. Basically, Armstrong has then used his
power as leader to prevent Simeoni doing anything in the TDF. Not nice.

Anyhow, this affair crops up in discussion on R5L this afternoon. They
comment on the incident, alluding to drugs references, but name no names and
say they can't comment because the court action is ongoing. Basically no
more than teasing. They know what's going on, but they're not gonna say
becasuse of an action in an Italian court.

It took me nearly an hour of googling to join all the dots, which they could
easily have explained as no risk to themselves at all. Is this the legacy
of Hutton I wonder?

You might like two rather contrasting descriptions of events:
http://tinyurl.com/5gl8u (The Guardian)
http://tinyurl.com/6pa7w (Cycling News)

Just wanted to get this off my chest, as I find the blandness of broadcast
journalism really sad. Mind you, at least R5L mentioned some of it, which
is a bloody sight more than either Eurosport or ITV, who are obviously
unkeen to mention that a sport into which they plough millions (thousands?)
is riddled with drugs from top to bottom.

Sorry about the cross-posting as well, but that's just usenet.

--
Despite appearances, it is still legal to put sugar on cornflakes.

--
Despite appearances, it is still legal to put sugar on cornflakes.

"Triffid" wrote in message
...
The scene: Tour de France, 23/07/2004.

The action: A bunch of small-time riders heads for the hills in the hope
of
their 15 minutes of fame. One Filippo Simeoni, buried at the bottom of
the
classification goes to join them. Lance Armstrong[The Man] follows
Simeoni.
A note on etiquette he the leader doesn't get in on small-time breaks
because many riders need these little titbits. Lance and Fillippo ride up
to the group, which looks at Lance in horror. Their efforts will be for
nothing with him there. They tell him to go away. Lance tells them he'll
bugger off if Simeoni drops back as well. So what's going on?

Turns out that Simeoni is a whistleblower, who testified in some court
that
Armstrong is on drugs
Of course we all know this,

Looking to get sued as well? And whats with the "we"? I dont know it. The
most *you* can do is suspect it, unless you claim to have seen him taking
them?

but Armstrong called
Simeoni 'a liar' in Le Monde. Simeoni in turn is suing Armstrong for
defamation and loss of earnings etc. Basically, Armstrong has then used
his
power as leader to prevent Simeoni doing anything in the TDF. Not nice.

I agree, accusing someone of taking drugs certainly isnt nice if you have no
proof.
And if you had been falsely accused, maybe you'd be ****ed off with your
accuser?


Anyhow, this affair crops up in discussion on R5L this afternoon. They
comment on the incident, alluding to drugs references, but name no names
and
say they can't comment because the court action is ongoing. Basically no
more than teasing. They know what's going on, but they're not gonna say
becasuse of an action in an Italian court.

It took me nearly an hour of googling to join all the dots, which they
could
easily have explained as no risk to themselves at all. Is this the legacy
of Hutton I wonder?

Dunno, it is pretty lily-livered I agree.


You might like two rather contrasting descriptions of events:
http://tinyurl.com/5gl8u (The Guardian)
http://tinyurl.com/6pa7w (Cycling News)

Just wanted to get this off my chest, as I find the blandness of broadcast
journalism really sad. Mind you, at least R5L mentioned some of it, which
is a bloody sight more than either Eurosport or ITV, who are obviously
unkeen to mention that a sport into which they plough millions
(thousands?)
is riddled with drugs from top to bottom.


Whats your evidence for that? Note, this needs evidence that large numbers
of amateurs are taking drugs, you did say 'bottom". I also very much doubt
that Eurosport "plough" anywhere near millions into the sport.I believe you
have already been warned several billion times not to exaggerate.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;

tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com.

In uk.rec.cycling Tumbleweed wrote:

: easily have explained as no risk to themselves at all. Is this the legacy
: of Hutton I wonder?

: Dunno, it is pretty lily-livered I agree.

It's nothing to do with Hutton and everything to do with the UK's libel
laws.

Arthur


--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

in message , Triffid
') wrote:

Turns out that Simeoni is a whistleblower, who testified in some court
that
Armstrong is on drugs.

Simeoni, as I understand it, testified that _he_ was on drugs and had
had them prescribed for him by a doctor (Michele Ferrari) who was also
involved in Armstrong's training.

Armstrong called Simeoni 'a liar' in Le Monde. Simeoni in turn is
suing Armstrong for defamation and loss of earnings etc. Basically,
Armstrong has then used his power as leader to prevent Simeoni doing
anything in the TDF.
Not nice.

Does anyone know whether Armstrong's claim is that Simeoni never took
the drugs he testified on oath that he had taken, or that Ferrari did
not supply them? In either case, how could he possibly know?

Either way, Armstrong's apparent attitude that whistleblowers should be
penalised is interesting.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and we had run out of gas for the welding torch.

Steve pibbled:
On 25-Jul-2004, "Triffid" wrote:

Turns out that Simeoni is a whistleblower, who testified in some court
that
Armstrong is on drugs

No he didn't - he gave evidence that Ferrari gave him (Simeoni) EPO

Of course we all know ths

You clearly didn't

Obviously not. The reason why is the point of the post. Ferrari was(is?)
in demand, more than likely as the pusher of choice. Any connection with
him is so suspicious as to infer guilt in any civil court. So why can't it
be mentioned on the media?


--
Despite appearances, it is still legal to put sugar on cornflakes.

Mr. James Follet pibbled:
Triffid writes of the Tour de Force.

Eurosport or ITV, who are obviously unkeen to mention that a sport
into which they plough millions (thousands?) is riddled with drugs from
top to bottom.

It's probable that there's a possibility that you're right, but does it
matter? After all, it's not as if these gentlemen (are wimmin allowed to
take part in the tour de force?) are using motorbikes to gad around that
frightful Frogland. Seems to me that it would be a good idea to let drug
usage have its head and so give the pharmaceutical industry a chance to
come up with something real nifty.

As it happens I sort of agree with you, you sad old ham. First time ever!

--
Despite appearances, it is still legal to put sugar on cornflakes.

him is so suspicious as to infer guilt in any civil court. So why can't
it
be mentioned on the media?

Broadcasters work under a whole raft or restrictions imposed by both
government and their employers. Some restrictions are official, some
unofficial, some even unspoken.... Sports producers may, for instance, be
restricted to reporting on just that; Sports! And, under normal
circumstances, nothing else!

It would, in general, be deemed 'unsafe' to make any comment or report that
may prejudice in any way the outcome of either a civil or criminal court
case since this could expose both the broadcasters and any affiliate to
either criminal or civil action. No reporter or news producer takes that
step lightly or without appropriate advice. Obtaining that advice requires
resources in terms of staff time at the location and the employment of legal
services; that eats into the programme budget. The more far-ranging that
advice the greater the drain.

Given that the ITV crew are on foreign soil everyone, crew, reporters and
directors will be guarded. They will be aware that they should not make any
comment that _might_ prejudice their facility to broadcast from that
location, either now or in the future. They are there to report on the
events taking place around them, not to comment or external matters. Were
they to comment the ITV editorial team would need to resource the legal
backup. In the context of a live programme this is particularly dangerous.
We all have opinions on the matters and the reporters\commentators involved
will be no exception. It's just too risky to have then engage in
conversation about it and I have no doubt that pre-transmission the party
line will be 'DO NOT COMMENT'...Leave the investigative journalism to Roger
Cook and just talk about the bicycles going round and round....

Bear in mind that an incident that seriously inconveniences the station
could actually jeopardise future coverage of the event! They'll have
bought-in the footage, it looks to me as though they've not put much in the
way of technical resources behind the location team..... This isn't big
budget stuff! If the powers that be were faced with a budget over-run as a
result of some careless comment they'll just pull the plug on it altogether!

"Robert Carnegie" wrote in message
...

Hasn't this been discussed previously? They only started
banning drugs when stoned hopped-up Tour cyclists started
dropping dead - early in the last century, I think. Britishers, IIRC.

Robert Carnegie at home, at large
--
I am fully aware I may regret this in the morning.


Mmm, amphetamines wasn't it?

Quite frankly, I'm surprised thry could cycle in a straight line at all...

Nelgonde opined the following...
Mmm, amphetamines wasn't it?

And alchohol. And an astounding ability to ignore the warning signs
(I've fallen off three times already. I can't stand up. Should make it
to the top no sweat!)

Jon

Jon Senior jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk wrote in message .. .
Nelgonde opined the following...
Mmm, amphetamines wasn't it?

And alchohol. And an astounding ability to ignore the warning signs
(I've fallen off three times already. I can't stand up. Should make it
to the top no sweat!)

Impairment of judgement is a well documented side effect of that
combination.

--
Dave...

When I was kidnapped, my parents snapped into action. They rented out
my room. — Woody Allen