Jeff Jones a écrit :
Quoted message said:B. Lafferty said:My list wasn't exhaustive. I'd add Ressiot, Jeff Jones and Charles Pelkey
(although he is no longer doing cycling journalism full time). One who is
definitely not on the list is Pier Bergonzi.
There goes the BlueBerry...
Thank you for the include, but I'm not sure what definition you're
using as a cycling journalist. Obviously one that includes hacks like
me :-) There are quite a lot of journos in Europe with cycling as their
main gig, although many - including most those you mentioned - cover
other sports or other topics. I do cover cycling exclusively, but my
actual writing time is fairly limited.
If you're talking about investigative journalists, then that's
something else. You need to invest the money and time into chasing a
story (which we do from time to time), then if you put accusations into
print, then you have to have the facts, lawyers and resources to back
you up. The bigger your publishing company, the more clout you have.
The Times and L'Equipe can do this, for example.
To do a good, bulletproof investigative story is quite difficult. If
you cover one side of the story, or one rider, then the perception is
that you have an axe to grind, and your cred comes under fire. It's
easy to shoot the messenger then. If you cover both sides in equal
depth, then the perception *can* be that your story is wishy-washy, so
no-one can be crucified. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't
:-)
Sometimes, the conclusion you reach in your story differs markedly from
your own opinion on the matter, but "I went by my gut feeling" doesn't
stand up well in court.
Jeff
Well, even though I plague you with my armchair copyediting, I am happy
to consider your work as having very high integrity. The big advantage
- which you make readily available - is the listing of a story's history
within your reporting. It is inevitable that stories follow unseen
paths, and the remarkable part of CN is this anchor in the past reality,
both of events and of public statements. Further, your articles tend to
remind the reader, directly, of the remaining points of
contention/contradiction that are too easily pushed aside. Finally, by
excerpting longish parts of public statements in CN, you avoid headline
oriented but context poor slants.
So what if you're a hack - you figured out a way to get paid to stay on
your bike. A nice hack.
--
Sandy
S'endormir au volant, c'est très dangereux.
S'endormir à vélo, c'est très rare.
S'endormir à pied, c'est très con.
- Geluck, P.
