Bad Journalism - Bicycling Lance Article

If Bicycling ever prints or posts another article by Joe Lindsey, or doesn't
print an apology, they will see a large number of magazine subscription
cancellations. The article sent via the web on 7/24 did not present the
facts, but was an emotional attack on Lance and cycling. Since when is
predicting the surfacing of a colder and spiteful Lance and then looking for
any signs to support that prediction good journalism? Joe continually
referred to Armstrong as ugly: "ugliest side broke out of the grandest
champion," "ugly agenda," "Amstrong's comment . . . is ugly." The final
straw is throwing facts out the window and stating that it just boiled down
to Lance wanting to make someone else fail. It even attacks Sheryl Crow....
why? I could go on, but you get the idea.

I am very disappointed that Bicycling supported this article. I am all for
learning both sides of the story and think both sides should be told. That
is why I read the article. But the story should be based on facts. If
someone has to constantly use terms such as "ugly" and add "freaking" to
someone's name and indicate Lance is cold and spiteful without any facts,
Bicycling should not publish the article. I am very hopeful that Bicycling
will realize that good judgment was not used in going forward with this
piece, especially on the eve of Lance's history-making sixth Tour de France
win. I sent Bicycling an e-mail (please feel free to send your own) and will
post their response here.

http://www.bicycling.com/tourdefranc...1-9781,00.html