15/09/2004
NEWS STORY
 |
Contrary to what the inhabitants of 'Planet Paddock' might think, Formula One is a sport, and therefore remains low on the totem pole of global issues.
This year, in particular, Monday morning news programmes have often failed to mention the result of the previous day's Grand Prix, a sad indictment of how boring and uninteresting many of those in the real world now find F1 to be.
While the rest of us attempt to obtain every last fact, rumour and wild guess about twenty men and their employers, the outside world has slightly more important issues to deal with, little things such as famine, terrorism, poverty and war.
Hard to believe I know, but outside 'Planet Paddock' there is a real world, a world where there are more important issues than lap times, brake ducts and intermediate tyres.
Nonetheless, in the last twenty-four hours there has been a media frenzy regarding events taking place, or indeed rumoured to be taking place, at Renault F1.
At the end of the Italian GP weekend, following another dismal race for Jarno Trulli, a story claiming that the Italian was about to be dumped emerged. Shortly afterwards it was claimed that Jacques Villeneuve was being lined up as the Italian's replacement.
First thing on Monday morning, Pitpass contacted Renault and asked for confirmation or denial of the rumour. "The rumours are pure speculation" was the response, "and the team denies them absolutely."
Although this may sound old-fashioned, at Pitpass we still believe in a little thing called integrity. It would have been easy to jump on the bandwagon and spout the same nonsense as many of our rivals. However, as ever, we wanted the truth.
Although it was clear that the relationship between Trulli and Renault was at an end, we had no evidence linking the 1997 world champion with the French outfit. Throughout the year, there have been countless rumours regarding the Canadian, endless talk of secret tests and private negotiations.
Not merely as journalists, but out of respect for Jacques and his vast 'army' of fans, we wanted the truth, we didn't want to see hopes built up and then cruelly dashed. Again.
The French outfit continued to deny that there was any substance to the building speculation. A follow up comment said: "Testing this week will proceed as planned, with Montagny and Alonso at Silverstone testing performance developments for the final three races. And as for the rumours, you have our position on that one already."
Despite the denials, the rumours not only grew, they built in intensity, there was talk of seat fittings at Enstone. Our question as to whether the rumour was "b******s" was met with the response "complete".
Now it turns out that the rumours were 100% correct, Trulli is gone and Jacques will indeed drive the R24 at Silverstone today.
Despite our best efforts, we cannot guarantee to get it 100% correct, 100% of the time. But we'll do our level best. If we are to be taken seriously, and not make fools of ourselves or our readers we have to deal in facts.
If we cannot trust an F1 team to give us facts then we are in a very sad situation.
Naturally there were lots of issues involved here, and perhaps Renault was unable to confirm or deny the rumours with any real degree of certainty. However they did deny them.
In such circumstances it is customary to say "no comment", and although this statement will often cause the journalist, and indeed the reader, to draw their own inference, it is more honourable than telling a lie.
For me, a basic code, a trust, has been broken. If Renault had not felt confident to at least say something off the record, we can appreciate that, although it has happened in the past, and with other teams. However to deny what turned out to be the truth, is wrong. Having been misled in this instance how are we to believe what we are told in future?
The good thing about 'the web' is that it affords everyone the chance to become a publisher - how many of us could ever afford to start a magazine? The bad thing about the web is that it affords everyone the chance to become a publisher.
Nowadays, a rumour, a story that has absolutely no basis in fact, can be on the web and forwarded around the globe in seconds. No magazine or newspaper ever had that sort of power.
The emergence of F1 websites has badly hit the magazines. Who wants to pay for weekly news coverage, race reports and test times, when it available on the web for free, and almost continuously updated?
Yet with that power comes responsibility. It is a journalist's duty to report the truth, the facts. Rumours can also be repeated as long as the reader is made aware that it is purely conjecture.
However, many web 'journalists' prefer sensationalism and wild speculation rather than facts. Stealing one person's utter nonsense and building upon it. As a result the rest of us tend to get tarred with the same brush.
However, as we have seen this week, what is the point of going to the source of a story, checking the facts, if you are not going to be told the truth?
We are certain that we are not alone, several other reputable websites have carried similar stories this week, all clearly misled by Renault. All will surely feel as angry and let down as I do. Let down, because a basic trust, has been broken.
Chris Balfe
Editor