Sidepodcast // All for F1 and F1 for all

Next race: Spanish Grand Prix, Barcelona

F1 websites you can trust // A list of the reputable sources for Formula One news and information

Published by Mr. C

Conversation in the comments has this afternoon turned to the subject of 'trust on the web'. James Allen today debunked a recent story regarding the supposed vote from the Mercedes parent company Daimler, to remain in F1. Allen achieved this amazing feat of investigative journalism by picking up the phone and asking someone, begging the inevitable question - if he can do it, why couldn't anyone else?

We have been pretty vocal on this site as to our dislike of the news syndication agency GMM. We actively avoid quoting any story sourced from the company and encourage anyone in the comments to do the same.

GMM may or may not have been to blame for the proliferation of the "Mercedes vote" story making it's ill-informed way around the web, but clearly it's managed to cause a mass of confusion amongst F1 fans. Therefore, what we'd like to do, is compile a list of all the respectable and trustworthy news sites, that F1 fans can rely on for their Formula news. We may not get them all, but at least it's something that can be used as a starting point for the future.

F1 News You Can Trust

Now, clearly there must be more than a handful of respectable F1 news sites on the internet, but those are the ones we can be sure of at the moment. Please, please let us know in the comments if there are others you trust implicitly, especially if there are any non-English sources we're not familiar with.

More from the comments

It would likely be easier (and more fun) to name and shame those homepage's that knowingly regurgitate rubbish in exchange for advertising dollars. Stuart suggested a Sidepodboycott against the most prolific offenders, but as much as that appeals we're all about the positives today, so let us know your favourites.




  • In addition to the links above, I always rather liked http://www.planetf1.com/

    They seem to avoid the more 'suspect' headlines and tend to get their facts straight (most of the time) before posting anything. Plus their editorials are rather good.

    Now you're gonna tell me they're part of GMM aren't you :)

  • Now you’re gonna tell me they’re part of the GMM aren’t you

    we're not sure actually. they don't quote gmm, but they do run with nonsense daimler vote story.

    anyone else?

  • they don’t quote gmm, but they do run with nonsense daimler vote story.

    The plagiarist plagiarised! That's karma, that is.

    Most of Planet F1's "news" is lifted from other places – either other sites or from magazines.

  • Man all this mercedes stuff has just gone through ym head and confused me with everything.

    Thanks for clearing this up a bit, although the whole story is still a bit of a blur..

  • we’re not sure actually. they don’t quote gmm, but they do run with nonsense daimler vote story.

    what is this 'gmm' thing?! i presume its some sort of media company!?

    i seem to be hearing about it lots

  • I always thought SPEED's F1 section was rather trustworthy?

  • I always thought SPEED’s F1 section was rather trustworthy?

    ahh. nice one, yes i believe so too. shall add, unless anyone objects?

  • Buspass isn't a bad site, but usually out of the loop and rather bitter for it.

  • ahh. nice one, yes i believe so too. shall add, unless anyone objects?

    After all, SPEED is the the only source of F1 in the U.S. and they actually turn up to events and interview people etc.

    With staff members including Peter Windsor, David Hobbs and Steve Matchett, you can't get more trustworthy than them, I reckon.

  • Buspass isn’t a bad site, but usually out of the loop and rather bitter for it.

    doh! of course. added.

  • Buspass isn’t a bad site, but usually out of the loop and rather bitter for it.

    i guess bernie's site should also feature!

  • Buspass isn’t a bad site, but usually out of the loop and rather bitter for it.

    did they fall out with bernie or something? they used to be right on the money a few years back.

  • i guess bernie’s site should also feature!

    and maybe max's too. we're good at this :)

  • what is this ‘gmm’ thing?! i presume its some sort of media company!?

    GMM = Global Motorsport Media

  • GMM = Global Motorsport Media

    www.gmmf1.net/ind…;content=services

  • http://www.gmmf1.net/index.php?action=show&content=services

    "By email and via the subscribers' website, Global Motorsport Media delivers between 10 and 30 original, highly researched and professionally compiled Formula 1 news articles for publication every day."

  • the F1 news tabs I always keep opened in my browser are autosport, pitpass, grand prix dot com, f1gp update. then of course few blogs :-)

  • “By email and via the subscribers’ website, Global Motorsport Media delivers between 10 and 30 original, highly researched and professionally compiled Formula 1 news articles for publication every day.”

    Riiight. And I'm Michael Schumacher.

  • “By email and via the subscribers’ website, Global Motorsport Media delivers between 10 and 30 original, highly researched and professionally compiled Formula 1 news articles for publication every day.”

    They forgot "several days after everyone else".

  • “By email and via the subscribers’ website, Global Motorsport Media delivers between 10 and 30 original, highly researched and professionally compiled Formula 1 news articles for publication every day.”

    What tosh!! lol

  • Riiight. And I’m Michael Schumacher.

    how can anyone find 10+ f1 stories on christmas day?

  • They forgot “several days after everyone else”.

    :D

  • I would add that while some sites may be factually accurate, some of these are quite biased in there approaches of some stories. Of course, a little bias is natural - a human wrote the article after all - but some let more out than they perhaps should. Given the fact that they are supposed to be reporting the news.

  • They forgot “several days after everyone else”.

    well sometimes several days before they never happen :-)

  • well sometimes several days before they never happen

    legend!

  • I would add that while some sites may be factually accurate, some of these are quite biased in there approaches of some stories. Of course, a little bias is natural - a human wrote the article after all - but some let more out than they perhaps should. Given the fact that they are supposed to be reporting the news.

    i very much agree with that.

  • i very much agree with that.

    your statement that is. rather than the idea journalists should be biased!

  • well sometimes several days before they never happen

    That too :)

  • I would add that while some sites may be factually accurate, some of these are quite biased in there approaches of some stories. Of course, a little bias is natural - a human wrote the article after all - but some let more out than they perhaps should. Given the fact that they are supposed to be reporting the news.

    Planet-F1 is particularly bad at being Pro-Hamilton and Anti-Ferrari...

  • your statement that is. rather than the idea journalists should be biased!

    Of course.

    I'm yet to meet a journalist who hasn't let a little bias into an article they've written before, many times it's probably an unconscious thing, many times it can even add to an article if it's open and clear. But there's a difference between adding an opinion and starting out with the mindset of 'blah is already blah'.

  • highly researched and professionally compiled

    That's an absolute hoot. I followed the link and noticed that one of the 'recent news stories' they list is repurposed from grandprix.com. Both site and author are namechecked assiduously at the beginning of the piece. Could this be because Joe S is massively on the warpath about GMM and they're running a tad scared?

  • Could this be because Joe S is massively on the warpath about GMM and they’re running a tad scared?

    maybe he should create a banner?

  • slightly off-topic: My favourite F1 sites:

    autosport.com for news and the online journal (don't like the new layout though)

    Turun Sanomat for news

    F1-live.com for the gossip

    Formula1.com for the interviews and pics

    Grandprix.com for the features and background stories

    pitpass.com esp Mike Lawrence not so much for the news; sometimes the forum because of Gregor V

    Times, Guardian, BBC and ITV (also only for feature stories not for the news)

    PlanetF1 only for the after race "10 conclusions" and "teammate wars" which CAN be amusing

    Ed's blog

    Motorsport's blogs and Nigel Roebuck Q&A

    Simon Arron's diary it's terrible to navigate though

    Darren Heath's blog which is offline at the moment

    Allen's blog

    Renault's podcast

    Motorsport.com for the photo archive

    and the drivercasts on GPtours not much new stuff though :(

    several fanblogs which I am to lazy to list

    I used to browse a lot of different forums as well but sidepodcast has taken over

  • slightly off-topic: My favourite F1 sites:

    good info kathi. i shall add in a second.

  • I used to browse a lot of different forums as well but sidepodcast has taken over

    sorry :(

  • sorry

    not at all. I like it much better here

  • Renault’s podcast

    yikes, i forgot the renault blog.

  • What about automotorundsport.de and motorsportaktuell.ch? Both are in german, but I think are a good source for F1 news.

  • What about automotorundsport.de and motorsportaktuell.ch? Both are in german, but I think are a good source for F1 news.

    haven't come across either daniel, but cheers for the heads-up, i shall add.

  • F1 Technical, F1 Minute and Racecar engineering

  • “By email and via the subscribers’ website, Global Motorsport Media delivers between 10 and 30 original, highly researched and professionally compiled Formula 1 news articles for publication every day.” {me quoting GMM - 23 comments ago}

    I believe the "between 10 and 30" bit. As for the rest... ...let's just say I'm pretty dubious.

  • I believe the “between 10 and 30? bit. As for the rest… …let’s just say I’m pretty dubious.

    every day though? there's hardy that many a week this time of year.

  • how can anyone find 10+ f1 stories on christmas day? {me - 18 comments ago}

    The Bored Journalist Syndrome modification of the Pareto Principle - "news" increases to fill the available space.

  • every day though? there’s hardy that many a week this time of year.

    I am tempted to suggest we start a rumour and see how long it takes to get back to us as news via gmm.

    We did this at a company I worked for years ago and it came back from the other site in less than an hour.

  • I am tempted to suggest we start a rumour and see how long it takes to get back to us as news via gmm.

    anything in mind?

  • We did this at a company I worked for years ago and it came back from the other site in less than an hour.

    It'll take longer if it's GMM ;)

  • anything in mind?

    It would need to be something good. Frank Williams to sell to Hyundai just as an example of course

  • I am tempted to suggest we start a rumour and see how long it takes to get back to us as news via gmm.

    We did this at a company I worked for years ago and it came back from the other site in less than an hour. {Steven Roy - 4 comments ago}

    I've done DIY rumour-mill stuff before, but none of my produce has ever been mistaken for a real rumour because it was always labelled as such.

    It would be interesting to see the return time on rumours. Jordan used to do it back in the 1990s and they frequently got their rumours fed back to them during the same race weekend as they made them up...

  • It would need to be something good. Frank Williams to sell to Hyundai just as an example of course

    Not something that's obviously nonsense like "Spyker plan to make F1 comeback", though.

  • what about Formulawahad.com :P

  • what about Formulawahad.com

    I think I may need a translation of that

  • every day though? there’s hardy that many a week this time of year.

    ahh - you jut need to get 'inventive' as to your news stories.

    "Ferrari not testing today"

    "Continuing silence surrounding Honda buyout rumours"

    "Bridgestone to supply F1 tyres in 2009"

    etc.

    10 to fill on Christmas day? easy!

    (Usefull? no)

  • Not something that’s obviously nonsense like “Spyker plan to make F1 comeback”, though. {Dom - 4 comments ago}

    Especially since the blokes who came up with the idea of Spyker joining F1 in the first place are still on the fringes of F1, with Force India (as very quiet partners to Mallya - hence the car carrying the "VJM" designation).

  • It’ll take longer if it’s GMM

    And like the child's game Chinese Whispers, it'll come back all skewed and incorrect.

  • “Ferrari not testing today”

    “Continuing silence surrounding Honda buyout rumours”

    “Bridgestone to supply F1 tyres in 2009?

    Sorry to post twice, but I would also like to add that these are the kinds of headlines bloggers might use, but they would actually write something of interest about the subject. Because bloggers aren't necessarily going to break any stories, they will often take a different viewpoint on something and write a piece that is actually worth reading, possibly accurate (or at least the good among us try to be) and would provide an entertaining read for a few minutes with some useful insights.

    This is why bloggers rule. Although completely separate to this post which is about F1 news sites and is therefore a whole different ballgame. Those guys get paid!

  • You have to be choosy with SPEED, they pick up GMM stories, too.

    It's easy to get burned with these guys. Focus, the cited pub, actually did run this story. The current version on its site runs the denial, as well:

    www.focus.de/spor…1_aid_366714.html

    It must be a nice to be able to work that way...

  • You have to be choosy with SPEED, they pick up GMM stories, too.

    amazing. how lazy can one company be?

    It must be a nice to be able to work that way…

    :D

  • F1 News You Can Trust

    * The Official Formula 1 Website

    * Federation Internationale de l’Automobile

    Personally I find both these sites to be politically motivated

  • As some of you may know I've been using GMM content on F1F for a month or two.

    I think it's painting in too broad strokes to say 'all GMM stuff is bad'. A lot of their stuff is re-reporting what others have reported, usually with a direct citation of the original source, which helps put it in context. This is hardly a radical new practice in blogging, is it? On F1F all articles are comment-able, we have a varied and knowledgeable community who add their own insight and, of course, criticism (I'm not sure how many other sites using GMM do this). GMM have welcomed this feedback and even begun commenting in response to discussions on their articles.

    I think you also have to bear in mind whether a site uses everything they get from agencies, or selects what they think are the most appropriate/interesting/informative/reliable pieces, as happens on F1F. My intention is to use the stuff that I think is valuable.

    On one hand, almost every day on Sidepodcast I hear pieces which I first read about in the GMM feed. On the other hand, on your 'trusted' list even Autosport, which I hold in the highest esteem, mis-reported the spygate trial verdict in 2007. Am I going to delete Sidepodcast off my MP3 player and cancel my Autosport subscription? Of course not. But I take everything with a pinch of salt.

    When I introduced GMM on F1F I got a broadly positive reaction and a minority who were vocally opposed to it, including on this website. I was urged to set up a separate RSS feed for people who did not want to receive GMM material. This I did, and every GMM story published since has had a link to the alternative feed. But only 38 are subscribed to the 'reduced feed', and over 1,900 are subscribed to the full feed.

    In an ideal world I could write F1F full-time and I would be able to write everything I want to get on the site without taking agency copy. But it's not an ideal world. I know that because my commute today lasted four and a half hours :-)

    The article you mentioned about Mercedes has been denied by the company, GMM have run a piece on that, and it's on F1F now. But let's be realistic - if you worked for Mercedes and you'd just voted by a tiny margin to stay in F1, you wouldn't be putting a press release out about it.

  • The article you mentioned about Mercedes has been denied by the company, GMM have run a piece on that, and it’s on F1F now. But let’s be realistic - if you worked for Mercedes and you’d just voted by a tiny margin to stay in F1, you wouldn’t be putting a press release out about it.

    This, I think, is very true. Nobody knows for sure what happened at McLaren (except the guys in the room / or not in the room as the case may be).

  • A lot of their stuff is re-reporting what others have reported

    isn't it more like - all of their stuff is re-reporting what others have reported? when have gmm ever produced an original / properly research story?

    GMM have welcomed this feedback and even begun commenting in response to discussions on their articles.

    their articles? what you mean is gmm welcome feedback on other peoples articles that they've copied and pasted? how magnanimous of them.

    But let’s be realistic - if you worked for Mercedes and you’d just voted by a tiny margin to stay in F1, you wouldn’t be putting a press release out about it.

    so does that make james allen a liar, or the contact he spoke to a liar? because he discovered:

    "There was no voting by the Daimler board of management concerning F1"

    according what you've just said, you think mercedes may actually have taken that vote?

  • (except the guys in the room / or not in the room as the case may be).

    :)

  • This, I think, is very true. Nobody knows for sure what happened at McLaren.

    i for one wish it were true. it makes for a great story.

  • Personally I find both these sites to be politically motivated

    I am inclinded to agree....what is the definition of "Sites you can TRUST" ??

  • Personally I find both these sites to be politically motivated

    completely. and they miss every controversial story going.

    I am inclinded to agree….what is the definition of “Sites you can TRUST” ??

    interesting question. kind of already answered in the post:

    "a list of all the respectable and trustworthy news sites"

    from sidepodcast's point of view, i guess this is kind of a whitelist, sites that come with a community seal of approval, one's that we all basically agree are ok.

    the bbc is arguably a politically motivated organisation (although it would deny it), but when they write about something, you can be pretty confident it at least contains some verifiable facts.

    does that help at all?

  • does that help at all?

    Question for you :-)

    “a list of all the respectable and trustworthy news sites”

    Do you trust the FIA website when it is reporting or releasing information that concerns its own actions or agenda?

  • Do you trust the FIA website when it is reporting or releasing information that concerns its own actions or agenda?

    usually the fia issue press releases relating to what's going on inside the fia and they effectivly answer to no-one.

    if they announce something was discussed on a given day, then it's likely that it was, therefore the information is factually correct. the natural question then might be... was an item discussed specifically so that a press release could be issued?

    that though is a whole different subject :)

  • i guess the thing with an fia press release, is that everybody knows that it's politically loaded. there's an expectation / assumption that it will be.

    what we object to though is something different, and i've given this example a thousand times, but when a news item reads:

    "fernando alonso has escaped unhurt from a plane crash, after the light aircraft he was travelling in clipped a building"

    the agency spreading that information better damn well have its facts straight, because that can easily upset a lot of people, close family included. problems arise when the real story reads:

    "fernando alonso has escaped unhurt from a plane crash, after the light aircraft he was travelling in clipped a building whilst taxiing slowly"

    those final words are kind of important in the grand scheme of things. they won't get you as many page views and they won't sell as much advertising space, but without them f1 fans are being taken for a ride and many people are needlessly inconvenienced (having to issue official corrections and such).

    in my book, that's very different from publishing political spin to an expectant audience.

  • if they announce something was discussed on a given day, then it’s likely that it was

    Was also thinking about the timing of announcements, which has the effect of either promoting or burying a news story.

    i guess the thing with an fia press release, is that everybody knows that it’s politically loaded. there’s an expectation / assumption that it will be

    Yes, but I find it worrying how often the main news sites just lap up fia press release and then re-report it without questioning the motives behind it - Take the Gold Medals press release, why was that released when it was? - What purpose did it serve other than to sir up a controversial issue that Bernie has twice said to forget about and to bring into question the outcome of previous championships that we know can't have retrospective system applied to them as the new system would have effected the original driver and team strategies.

    On Gold Medals, what about the yes/no vote that was run on the OFFICIAL Formula 1 site that just presented the view of the sites owner in the article accompanying the vote? Is it fair to expect a general audience to be wary of the official site?

    Like how you picked up on the Alonso story - Mav had a nice gripe about that..

    "Alonso Survives Major Air Disaster......by not being on the plane".

    www.pitlanefanati…hp?f=13&t=502

    Do agree very much with all the points your making about news agencies making a story into what it is not (and wasting thousands of subsequent forum/blog hours discussing / arguing a story that existed in the first place.

  • Was also thinking about the timing of announcements, which has the effect of either promoting or burying a news story.

    ahh yes, 6pm on a friday evening is always a favourite.

  • Like how you picked up on the Alonso story - Mav had a nice gripe about that..

    “Alonso Survives Major Air Disaster……by not being on the plane”.

    http://www.pitlanefanatic.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=502

    brilliant :)

    the pics were priceless too:

    axisofoversteer.b…-plane-crash.html

  • YTake the Gold Medals press release, why was that released when it was? - What purpose did it serve other than to sir up a controversial issue that Bernie has twice said to forget about and to bring into question the outcome of previous championships that we know can’t have retrospective system applied to them as the new system would have effected the original driver and team strategies.

    completely agree. but when i read it i did so with the knowledge that max and bernie are fighting and we're but pawns in their pathetic media game. the medals press release was based on facts though, and that i guess is the key from my point of view. the figures did add up, even if there was added spin in the text.

  • we’re but pawns in their pathetic media game

    Unfortunate but true

  • the pics were priceless too:

    axisofoversteer.b…-plane-crash.html

    :-D Thanks

    Time to call it a night me thinks

    Good night

  • Time to call it a night me thinks

    Good night

    night jolly.

  • James Allen is doing something special here: he's restoring his reputation with the ones who have criticized him the most - the hardcore F1 fans.

    For years, he was criticized for his awful commentary. But very few people ever saw his writing on the ITV website. Now that he's no longer in the booth and is focusing on writing instead, other people are noticing it - and liking it! And let's face it, only the hardcore fans would really go out of their way to read F1 blogs.

    James is sticking to doing one thing - and he's doing it well. And he's duly getting rewarded for it.

  • A lot of their stuff is re-reporting what others have reported, usually with a direct citation of the original source, which helps put it in context.

    They only started doing this after repeated complaints from the people whose material they appropriated.

    I think your response is a trifle disingenuous, Keith. Now, if bloggers want to pay GMM for their content, and forum-dwellers want to work themselves into a froth about "news" 10-30 times a day, that's their look-see. But let's not pretend that GMM do anything other than wait for a quote to pop its head above the parapet, spin up a news story based on it, then syndicate that to website proprietors who are hungry for visitors.

    Various people here have mentioned the Alonso plane crash story. I think a more apposite example is a recent interview (in the Telegraph, I think) where an RBS exec admitted that they were reviewing their sponsorship portfolio. This duly popped on on various websites as "WILLIAMS SPONSORSHIP IN CRISIS" story. Very misleading.

    You return to the age-old "Autosport got it wrong" story. I think there's a world of difference between a reporter "on the ground" making a bad judgement call and someone who sits in an office on the other side of the world conjuring non-stories out of other people's quotes.

  • James Allen is doing something special here: he’s restoring his reputation with the ones who have criticized him the most - the hardcore F1 fans.

    good call sir. hadn't considered that.

  • I would actually drop the BBC from that list since they regularly lift their stories from other sites although in general good ones but occasionally GMM. Significantly it means it is old news. However, I know for a fact that they at least once lifted their free practice times from a post in their forum (they usually copy them from autosport) - now how lazy is that?

  • I would actually drop the BBC from that list since they regularly lift their stories from other sites although in general good ones but occasionally GMM.

    really? never seen that myself, do you have an example?

  • Hi all,

    I welcome constructive feedback and am not afraid of the vigour of the conversation here, so I will at least make an effort to demonstrate that the dreaded acronym "GMM" is at least not out of touch with the fans/spectators and their expectations. But I must admit to not really understanding the strength of the venom about an agency whose sole mission is to give you guys more information about the sport we all love.

    For example, I make no secret that the information carried by my agency is fundamentally non-exclusive. We are basically a 'media-monitor' of sorts of many sources of F1 news in multiple languages. Our information is presented in a 'reportage' style, basically having recompiled 'new' evidence about the world of grand prix racing in a single service.

    It seems to me that there is plenty of scope to critically analyse GMM content largely because we carry more information on a daily basis than does any other comparable service. But if we carry a report by the German news magazine Focus (the Mercedes vote story) that is subsequently denied, why does that reflect poorly on the messenger? Has anyone spent any time wondering about the quality of Focus? If Focus had reported ahead of anyone else that Schumacher has broken his little finger, and that information turned out to be true, what would the quality of Focus be then? How does that relate to my agency? And has anyone stopped to consider that the Mercedes story might be true? Do you only want to know verified facts? If a story makes someone squirm, does that invalidate the motivation for reporting it? Is that the way a free media operates?

    Our idea is to provide the fans/readers with access to as much information as possible from as wide a net as possible. Yes, often the source of the news has got it wrong, but isn't that the nature of our beast? We can complain loudly that not all the strawberries in our punnet are tasty, but is that fair on the strawberry grower? Do we thank him for the 15 good strawberries and kick him for the bad one?

    I have some more questions: are we angry about the nature of a free media, about the purveyors of bad information, or about the messenger who is endeavouring to bring you the good, the bad and the ugly of the thing we call the 'F1 media' in the interest of knowledge? If information carried by GMM is proved wrong, that subsequent development is always clarified, for the simple reason that our raison d'etre - widening objective knowledge about this sport - has been betrayed. Most of the time, we are simply reporting the claims of authoritative sources and publications. But let's imagine that the pieces that I would classify as 'highly speculative' turn out to be totally untrue 6 times out of 10, partially true 3 times out of 10, and completely true 1 time out of 10. Don't you still want the media to be presenting the 'highly speculative' claims of other professional outlets? Don't you want to wonder ahead of time if there's fire where there's smoke? If no, then GMM's 'catch-all' philosophy is not your brand of vodka.

    If the critique is about something else, please feel free to air your views, my enterprise is viable enough, and my fragile ego today in a rare state of vigour, to be able to count my blessings on one hand, and spare some time for gripes on the other. But a wholesale 'GMM=crap' attitude, I respectfully suggest, would indicate some sort of neurosis that cannot be answered here objectively.

    I have another remedy to the awful daily grind of enduring the fruits of my office: de-bookmark the offending sites, and spend your days reading more worthy efforts. I promise you, just like giving up the habit of banging your head against a brick wall, your headache will subside.

    Or perhaps you just want to know as much as you can about this fascinating sport. That's certainly my morning mantra. But don't blame me for it.

    Sincerely

    Andrew Maitland

    Editor

  • We are basically a ‘media-monitor’ of sorts...

    really? i heard you offer:

    "highly researched and professionally compiled Formula 1 news articles"

    source: www.gmmf1.net/ind…;content=services

  • Do we thank him for the 15 good strawberries and kick him for the bad one?

    It's up to the grower to filter out those that aren't fit for consumption. If a bad one was in every batch I bought, I think I would look for another strawberry farmer.

  • It seems to me that there is plenty of scope to critically analyse GMM content largely because we carry more information on a daily basis than does any other comparable service

    you carry more information on a daily basis than reuters do you? or AP wire?

    even if you did provide more words than anyone else, since when is quantity a substitute for quality?

  • I have another remedy to the awful daily grind of enduring the fruits of my office: de-bookmark the offending sites, and spend your days reading more worthy efforts.

    Hence the nature of the blog post :)

  • If information carried by GMM is proved wrong, that subsequent development is always clarified, for the simple reason that our raison d’etre - widening objective knowledge about this sport - has been betrayed. Most of the time, we are simply reporting the claims of authoritative sources and publications. But let’s imagine that the pieces that I would classify as ‘highly speculative’ turn out to be totally untrue 6 times out of 10, partially true 3 times out of 10, and completely true 1 time out of 10. Don’t you still want the media to be presenting the ‘highly speculative’ claims of other professional outlets? Don’t you want to wonder ahead of time if there’s fire where there’s smoke? If no, then GMM’s ‘catch-all’ philosophy is not your brand of vodka.

    It sounds like you have no quality control whatever. You are prepared to recycle anything you find without a care as to its accuracy.

    Recycling rumour is fine for commenters on a blog or a forum but that does not make those of us who do it news services. It seems to me that you will recycle anything you find and charge for it.

    If James Allen can make a phone call to Mercedes and get a denial why can't you do basic checks. It's not like you would have to fly to Stuttgart and set up a meeting.

    Widening objective knowledge does not mean spreading any rumour. It should mean checking facts and putting out info you know to be correct.

  • Hence the nature of the blog post

    absolutely. as stated in the post:

    "we’re all about the positives today, so let us know your favourites"

    and people have done.

  • ‘GMM=crap’ attitude, I respectfully suggest, would indicate some sort of neurosis that cannot be answered here objectively.

    i'm not sure you've read this post very well at all. clearly written above:

    "We actively avoid quoting any story sourced from the company and encourage anyone in the comments to do the same."

    i believe you are the first commentor to publicly state "GMM=crap". well done.

  • Recycling rumour is fine for commenters on a blog or a forum but that does not make those of us who do it news services..

    hear, hear.

  • i’m not sure you’ve read this post very well at all. clearly written above:

    “We actively avoid quoting any story sourced from the company and encourage anyone in the comments to do the same.”

    i believe you are the first commentor to publicly state “GMM=crap”. well done.

    Ironic that we suspect GMM of misreporting stories and not checking facts that they misread and misuse quotes stated here in their rebuttal.

    Dear Mr. Maitland, all Mr. Allen did was pick up the phone and call Mercedes to check the story. The same should have been the case for the Alonso plane story. I'm sorry, but if GMM wants to be considered a true news service, then they should start acting like one by checking facts and not just re-hashing rumour, theory and blogs.

  • Dear Mr. Maitland, all Mr. Allen did was pick up the phone and call Mercedes to check the story. The same should have been the case for the Alonso plane story. I’m sorry, but if GMM wants to be considered a true news service, then they should start acting like one by checking facts and not just re-hashing rumour, theory and blogs.

    Is Alonso out of hospital yet after his plane crash.

  • I have some more questions: are we angry about the nature of a free media, about the purveyors of bad information, or about the messenger who is endeavouring to bring you the good, the bad and the ugly of the thing we call the ‘F1 media’ in the interest of knowledge?

    personally, i'm not angry.

    i'm disappointed that we often have to point out to anyone who comments here, that the exciting news they just read on site 'x' is likely to be complete bunkem.

    that's probably the worst thing about running this site in fact. we love to encourage conversation, and it's a shame we have to approach every link with an air of cynicism until we've checked who wrote it. we have to though, because that's what previous experience has taught us.

    for what it's worth andrew, i do appreciate you commenting here. we first heard about you when you contacted us at the beginning of 2008. we decided at the time your service wasn't worth the cost, but since then we have been paying attention to the stories coming from your neck of the woods, and rest assured we'll keep watching and criticising when we feel it necessary.

  • Is Alonso out of hospital yet after his plane crash.

    :D

    :D

  • I would actually drop the BBC from that list since they regularly lift their stories from other sites although in general good ones but occasionally GMM. Significantly it means it is old news. However, I know for a fact that they at least once lifted their free practice times from a post in their forum (they usually copy them from autosport) - now how lazy is that?

    I'd agree. I know it's a while ago now, but the BBC and GMM were the prime spreaders of a lot of nonsense about the multi-race engine rules.

    www.linksheaven.c…nd-f1-news-sites/

    I'd agree about the slowness of the news on the BBC site too, I'd never bother looking at it for breaking F1 news.

  • are we angry about the nature of a free media, about the purveyors of bad information, or about the messenger who is endeavouring to bring you the good, the bad and the ugly of the thing we call the ‘F1 media’ in the interest of knowledge?

    Given that in the internet age information spreads exponentially, whether correct or not, you owe a duty of care to your customers (the readers, ultimately) to at the very least check the veracity of the "news" you syndicate. On countless occasions you have disseminated outright disinformation – which then, by dint of syndication, appears in so many places that it gains currency in the minds of the gullible and suggestible (or, indeed, people who don't realise that it all springs from the same tainted source). The argument that you are only reporting what others have printed is utterly specious. You are abusing the faith placed in you by credulous people who ought to know better but sadly don't.

    "In the interest of knowledge"? Give me a break. Promulgating any old tosh without checking it first is a surefire road to un-knowledge. What possible benefit can eventuate from a speculative mash-up of a (usually) mistranslated or out-of-context quote, spun up into a vaguely plausible story?

    Is Alonso out of hospital yet after his plane crash.

    Exactly.

    PS I'm not angry – but I know several people who are. I believe you've heard from them...

  • But if we carry a report by the German news magazine Focus (the Mercedes vote story) that is subsequently denied, why does that reflect poorly on the messenger?

    Because you are charging for news so people are entitled to value for money. It is called quality control and it is a fundamental function of any business. Anyone could read Diario AS and recycle the garbage it prints but to package that as a product and sell it.

    How much of Focus have you read before the Merc story? Are you sure it is a reputable source?

  • I think a more apposite example is a recent interview (in the Telegraph, I think) where an RBS exec admitted that they were reviewing their sponsorship portfolio. This duly popped on on various websites as “WILLIAMS SPONSORSHIP IN CRISIS” story. Very misleading.

    The headline for that story on F1 Fanatic was "RBS reviewing Williams sponsorship". If some other site puts an alarmist spin on it that's nothing to do with me.

  • the GMM reaction to this debate reminds of a reaction of a "close friend of Steve Slater" on my site when I dared to write what I think about the quality of the ESPN Star Sports f1 coverage and especially the performance of Steve Slater :-)

    at least we know that chances are sometimes those we talk about also read what we write :-)

  • at least we know that chances are sometimes those we talk about also read what we write

    i'm very much aware of it. and it does not change my opinion one iota.

  • But let’s imagine that the pieces that I would classify as ‘highly speculative’ turn out to be totally untrue 6 times out of 10, partially true 3 times out of 10, and completely true 1 time out of 10. Don’t you still want the media to be presenting the ‘highly speculative’ claims of other professional outlets? Don’t you want to wonder ahead of time if there’s fire where there’s smoke? If no, then GMM’s ‘catch-all’ philosophy is not your brand of vodka.

    So if I read this right, 40% of the time you would accept story's for print that may be inaccurate? It's just as well you don't work in academia then as it's required you have at least 95% confidence in your data.

  • So if I read this right, 40% of the time you would accept story’s for print that may be inaccurate? It’s just as well you don’t work in academia then as it’s required you have at least 95% confidence in your data.

    95% certainty would mean a lot of blank pages in the newspapers :)

  • Personally I find both these sites to be politically motivated {jolly - 49 comments ago}

    At least they write what (some of) the people in those organisations are thinking at that particular moment, even if it is sometimes disconnected from practical reality. But yes, they are politically motivated, so some of their "news" should be interpreted as "views" or maybe even "skews".

  • But it’s not an ideal world. I know that because my commute today lasted four and a half hours {Keith - 44 comments ago}

    That sounds like a horrible commute :(

  • This, I think, is very true. Nobody knows for sure what happened at McLaren (except the guys in the room / or not in the room as the case may be). {Alex Andronov - 43 comments ago}

    Good point, though I would have thought there'd at least be a release out to confirm they were staying. In this climate, it would send a definite statement of intent to its shareholders. Worded correctly, it could indicate "We're so confident that we can come out of this strongly that we are continuing to invest in the long-term marketing strength generated by our successful F1 partnership".

    The lack of attempt to do this, in itself, made it very possible that no such vote had occurred.

  • I am inclinded to agree….what is the definition of “Sites you can TRUST {Jon Waldock - 42 comments ago}

    Sites that can be trusted to make sure that what they are writing is at least true from a certain perspective (I think).

    If it was "Sites that can be trusted to make sure that what they are writing is at least true from a perspective other than that of their own navel", then the list would be considerably shorter...

  • James is sticking to doing one thing - and he’s doing it well. And he’s duly getting rewarded for it. {Journeyer - 29 comments ago}

    James Allen is a fine writer. Good to see he's making a success of his blog. Must remember to bookmark it :)

  • James Allen is a fine writer. Good to see he’s making a success of his blog. Must remember to bookmark it

    you not rss?

  • Now, if bloggers want to pay GMM for their content, and forum-dwellers want to work themselves into a froth about “news” 10-30 times a day, that’s their look-see. {Stuart C - 28 comments ago}

    To be honest, I think Keith is doing his best to make the GMM feed usable. The real problem is with GMM itself for not doing enough research on stories. Clearly there's a gap in the market for a reliable, well-researched news source to pay bloggers to spread their content. It will be interesting to see if and how it is filled. Should a competitor like that appear, I confidently predict that the best of the competition will get the bulk of the users and problems like the ones we are complaining about should be very much reduced. This in turn will make Keith's news moderation job much easier and raise everyone's confidence in the reliability of F1 news.

    Of course, if GMM improve the quality of their content, the gap could close before any other competitor could act upon it.

  • I think there’s a world of difference between a reporter “on the ground” making a bad judgement call and someone who sits in an office on the other side of the world conjuring non-stories out of other people’s quotes. {Stuart C - 28 comments ago}

    Point taken. However undesirable the former is, the latter is just plain pointless.

  • However, I know for a fact that they at least once lifted their free practice times from a post in their forum {Maverick - 26 comments ago}

    That is astonishing. Even I don't lift stuff off the forum my web presence is attached to, and I'm an amateur blogger...

  • Of course, if GMM improve the quality of their content, the gap could close before any other competitor could act upon it.

    The problem here is that bloggers and web users are having to filter out the good stories from the bad, when GMM should be doing this in the first place.

    Remember, all it took was a simple phone call to confirm the Mercedes story. It's not hard, people!

  • Clearly there’s a gap in the market for a reliable, well-researched news source to pay bloggers to spread their content.

    not really. simply make a list of reliable sites and limit comment / discussion to those sources.

    if only a blog would do such a thing...

  • Remember, all it took was a simple phone call to confirm the Mercedes story. It’s not hard, people!

    100% agreement from me.

  • if only a blog would do such a thing…

    :)

  • Well thank you guys for listing us - but I think you missed out sidepodcast - we love your spin on things!

    Speedtv.com, Grandprix.com are the ones we find best - but the way we get our stories is by doing that strange thing of asking people. And if its a rumour we say so!

  • Speedtv.com, Grandprix.com are the ones we find best - but the way we get our stories is by doing that strange thing of asking people. And if its a rumour we say so!

    and that is precisely why we trust your work ;)

  • If Focus had reported ahead of anyone else that Schumacher has broken his little finger, and that information turned out to be true, what would the quality of Focus be then? How does that relate to my agency? {GMM - 31 comments ago}

    Thank you for replying to the conversation :)

    I did start replying here, but the comment got unfeasibly long, so [url=http://formula1home.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=647]I've done a blog entry instead[/url]. Warning: contains whipped cream.

  • I think my previous comment ended up in the spam bin. I didn't know there was anything wrong with linking to my own blog...

  • I think my previous comment ended up in the spam bin. I didn’t know there was anything wrong with linking to my own blog…

    found it, and of course not, please link at will.

  • Recycling rumour is fine for commenters on a blog or a forum but that does not make those of us who do it news services. {Steven Roy - 32 comments ago}

    True. Even I don't claim to be a news service, and I inadvertently got an effective exclusive a couple of weeks back (I say inadvertently because I didn't know I had discovered anything new until the "pit lane closures will no longer happen" item spread through the internet...)

  • Is Alonso out of hospital yet after his plane crash. {Steven Roy - 30 comments ago}

    Considering the number of items GMM have published on Alonso that implied that he was not in hospital (not to mention the fact that they said he was uninjured in the initial item), I would assume that Andrew and his colleagues know he didn't go into hospital in the first place.

  • found it, and of course not, please link at will. {me - 3 comments ago}

    I think I know what went wrong. I was still in BBCode (which my blog uses) mode instead of HTML (which most of the rest of the internet uses). Naturally the spam filter didn't have the foggiest idea what BBCode was and assumed it was rubbish.

    Here is the link to my GMM response coded correctly.

  • I think I know what went wrong. I was still in BBCode (which my blog uses) mode instead of HTML (which most of the rest of the internet uses). Naturally the spam filter didn’t have the foggiest idea what BBCode was and assumed it was rubbish.

    you also mentioned "whipped cream" :)

    Here is the link to my GMM response coded correctly.

    perfect.

  • at least we know that chances are sometimes those we talk about also read what we write {f1wolf - 25 comments ago}

    Good point. Now how do we get Max and Bernie to read the blogs? (OK, Max Mosley did say about a year ago that he reads blogs, but if he responds to them it's not under his real name).

  • So if I read this right, 40% of the time you would accept story’s for print that may be inaccurate? It’s just as well you don’t work in academia then as it’s required you have at least 95% confidence in your data. {Jackie - 23 comments ago}

    It's worse than that. Andrew's saying that 60% of the time speculative stories are inaccurate and 30% of the time they are partly inaccurate. Of course, he hasn't told us what proportion of the stories he receives are speculative in nature (at least some will be non-speculative due to the nature of the subject), but if everything GMM received was speculative, then between 60% and 89.9% of the content would be inaccurate, depending on what proportion of the "partially accurate" content was accurate.

  • you not rss? {me - 16 comments ago}

    No, I don't. My blog may have an RSS feed (two in fact, because the one that came with the blog didn't work properly), but I don't use RSS feeds myself. I prefer doing my own information checking rather than relying on the computer, even if it takes a bit longer. It's more tactile, I get a better feel for how the various bits of information link to one another and it's easier to comment on something if you're already there. Yahoo! Sports works well to tell me the basis of the stories I am likely to read, which replaces the other function of the RSS feed reader.

    For that matter, I have a feed reader (CoffeeCup) but don't see the point in setting it up for the little use I would get from it.

  • not really. simply make a list of reliable sites and limit comment / discussion to those sources.

    if only a blog would do such a thing… {me - 11 comments ago}

    Sounds like you need Yahoo! Pipes or a publically-readable feed reader. Then tell everyone to link to the pipe/feed reader items. Should make life simpler for everyone (no more having half-a-dozen tabs open for commenters, easier to track sources for readers).

  • you also mentioned “whipped cream” :) {me - 5 comments ago}

    True. But I don't think whipped cream, or any other food item, on its own upsets the spam filter. Only stuff that upsets the rules it has would do that ;)

  • True. But I don’t think whipped cream, or any other food item, on its own upsets the spam filter. Only stuff that upsets the rules it has would do that

    trust me on this one alia... it does!

  • trust me on this one alia… it does! {me - previous comment}

    Oh dear. I didn't know it was that fussy...

  • If you want to try racecar engineering the next three issues are free online at this link

    www.racecar-engineering.com/students

  • For analysis on F1 events and races there is www.f1obsessed.com as well

  • Hi there. Just throwing my blog into the reliable names hat: http://www.anf1blog.com. We are certainly trustworthy and will certainly never use GMM!

  • What about Will Buxton's blog or Stuart Codling's blog?

  • What about Will Buxton's blog or Stuart Codling's blog?

    they didn't exist, but we can certainly update the list now.

  • What about Will Buxton's blog or Stuart Codling's blog?

    they didn't exist, but we can certainly update the list now.

    Exactly ;)

    Any other good ones we are missing? MetroF1?

  • Any other good ones we are missing? MetroF1?

    yup. and joe's blog.

  • ManipeF1 can also be added to this list.

  • ManipeF1 can also be added to this list.

    oh yes. ta.

  • This page needs updating - Pitpass are no good and a few of us here have issues with James Allen. Also, Ed Gorman doesn't do F1 anymore, grandprix.com don't have a paddock pass, the Times is paywall and BBC's gossip column does GMM. Even Autosport have been made to look bad with the 'Real Lotus' story...

  • It would be a small post then!

  • It would be a small post then!

    Fair point ;)

  • It would be a small post then!

    websites you can trust... erm, no-one.

  • websites you can trust... erm, no-one.

    I suppose I was being too harsh earlier, but my point was that even though we "trust" these websites, the stories still have to be taken with a pinch of salt...

  • I suppose I was being too harsh earlier, but my point was that even though we "trust" these websites, the stories still have to be taken with a pinch of salt...

    but the post isn't titled 'f1 flavours of the month'. none of the sites you mentioned above are regularly disseminating false information for profit, we just disagree with their editorial style.

  • but the post isn't titled 'f1 flavours of the month'. none of the sites you mentioned above are regularly disseminating false information for profit, we just disagree with their editorial style.

    That's a fair point too.

  • Want to make money online fast. Go here: http://www.cashcrate.com/2550851

  • Why isn't Joe Saward's Blog listed here?

  • Why isn't Joe Saward's Blog listed here?

    I would guess Joe had not started his blog when the list was compiled

  • I would guess Joe had not started his blog when the list was compiled

    correct, we'll have to do an updated list soon. joe was still writing for grandprix.com when list was compiled and that's why it was listed.

  • There is also Craig Scarborough's blog. He gives amazing technical insight into all things F1

Comments closed to new entries.