Daniel Blair and the Media's complete and utter silence

pistol wrote:

There are a shit ton of dudes on Vital right now that need to wipe away the tears and go for a ride.

phatfi20 wrote:

To start: I have a lot of respect to Michael Lindsey. Super intelligent. Can't question his motivation ever. Started a freaking race team. 99.9% always has...

To start: I have a lot of respect to Michael Lindsey. Super intelligent. Can't question his motivation ever. Started a freaking race team. 99.9% always has the correct take. Answers intelligent questions on this forum and is undoubtedly popular and is an irreplaceable asset. ML is pro "free speech" and does not censor fair criticism here. We know his predecessor's censorship was North Korean dictator level and you would not be reading half of what you read here if it were up to him. He is no longer a journalist in the sport either.  ML is respectfully addressing my fair criticism head on. I love that. My opinion on ML is improved due to that....but this is a fair criticism of the entire media. I am not the first one to point it out.

With that said. How does any story get written when one party doesn't want to talk about it? It is not novel predicament that media member has an assignment, must write a story of public interest, but they do no and can not alienate their source. The situation here hinges on your word and friendship to DB. Pretty important in itself. However, in other media forms, the media is writing a story and can literally get their sources killed if they misstep. Think any whistleblower story. Much higher stakes and it is done as a matter of course.

Reporters explore information in an informal setting to get information off the record. They use what they know "off the record" to get what they can get from the source "on the record".. Then they contact as many people with any knowledge as possible to further build the web of knowledge base off the record and "on the record" facts they can safely use in a story/content. on and off the record. They piece together a puzzle of information that way. The "protected" source is never mentioned and no unique information leading back to them is disclosed. When someone doesn't want to comment, you can fairly state, "X was reached for comment and declined". No alienation or making your friends mad. I get this is a small sport.

My criticism is that is misstep one. Content representing this direction should have been done 18 months ago after he was fired. 

Fast forward to January 2025. Daniel went on Gypsy 1 month ago. The excuse, I will respectfully call it, forwarded as of yesterday that "Daniel didn't want to talk about it" has been moot for over a month. One month. I would expected any content to jump to follow up on his revelations as again. Follow up interview with him. Garnering "Clicks" in media is your job and right there for the taking. Whether you care of not personally(you are reading this far), this is a matter of public interest and high engagement. Get with DB, explore the facts that DB wanted shared after Gypsy and provide even more insight. I repeat, no requirement break your word to him or alienate him. Contact direct sources. Anonymous sources. Those close to NBC, FELD. Ex-employees who have no skin in the game. Create a story publishing both sides of the story and if someone chooses not to comment, that is published, they intelligently made that decision and the natural inferences will be made.

For one month, that didn't happen. A year and a half later, cats out of the bag, public for a month. Any content on what Feld thinks? RC? Bondo? NBC exec.  Various others I am leaving out? If they are declining to comment, that is mentioned.

Still right now, this isn't even registering on major media outlets "breaking news" sections. I can't accept that "Daniel didn't want to talk about it" was ever a valid excuse. What is the latest on the websites? "RJ Hampshire is emotional because he won" "MXGP of Argentina". Looking at the vital forum, whether you think its unimportant or not, this isn't what people seem to be gravitating towards at the moment. The real answer is they were avoiding it then and they are still avoiding it now.

My suspicion is this. This is not an unfair criticism. Discussion not bash them but to identify a problem and a solution, for whoever out there wants to find one. The media a "groupie syndrome" problem. They are intelligent people. They are not dumb or lazy. This exists because we have a small sport, you can alienate people easily and then you are "blacklisted" from resources necessary to do your job. However, they must overcome this and be innovative to do so. You do not need to re-invent the wheel. Look to how other journalists handle this problem. You have the duty to you publication, your boss and the customer to maximize the interest for your publication and make them money.

 

phatfi20 wrote:

To start: I have a lot of respect to Michael Lindsey. Super intelligent. Can't question his motivation ever. Started a freaking race team. 99.9% always has...

To start: I have a lot of respect to Michael Lindsey. Super intelligent. Can't question his motivation ever. Started a freaking race team. 99.9% always has the correct take. Answers intelligent questions on this forum and is undoubtedly popular and is an irreplaceable asset. ML is pro "free speech" and does not censor fair criticism here. We know his predecessor's censorship was North Korean dictator level and you would not be reading half of what you read here if it were up to him. He is no longer a journalist in the sport either.  ML is respectfully addressing my fair criticism head on. I love that. My opinion on ML is improved due to that....but this is a fair criticism of the entire media. I am not the first one to point it out.

With that said. How does any story get written when one party doesn't want to talk about it? It is not novel predicament that media member has an assignment, must write a story of public interest, but they do no and can not alienate their source. The situation here hinges on your word and friendship to DB. Pretty important in itself. However, in other media forms, the media is writing a story and can literally get their sources killed if they misstep. Think any whistleblower story. Much higher stakes and it is done as a matter of course.

Reporters explore information in an informal setting to get information off the record. They use what they know "off the record" to get what they can get from the source "on the record".. Then they contact as many people with any knowledge as possible to further build the web of knowledge base off the record and "on the record" facts they can safely use in a story/content. on and off the record. They piece together a puzzle of information that way. The "protected" source is never mentioned and no unique information leading back to them is disclosed. When someone doesn't want to comment, you can fairly state, "X was reached for comment and declined". No alienation or making your friends mad. I get this is a small sport.

My criticism is that is misstep one. Content representing this direction should have been done 18 months ago after he was fired. 

Fast forward to January 2025. Daniel went on Gypsy 1 month ago. The excuse, I will respectfully call it, forwarded as of yesterday that "Daniel didn't want to talk about it" has been moot for over a month. One month. I would expected any content to jump to follow up on his revelations as again. Follow up interview with him. Garnering "Clicks" in media is your job and right there for the taking. Whether you care of not personally(you are reading this far), this is a matter of public interest and high engagement. Get with DB, explore the facts that DB wanted shared after Gypsy and provide even more insight. I repeat, no requirement break your word to him or alienate him. Contact direct sources. Anonymous sources. Those close to NBC, FELD. Ex-employees who have no skin in the game. Create a story publishing both sides of the story and if someone chooses not to comment, that is published, they intelligently made that decision and the natural inferences will be made.

For one month, that didn't happen. A year and a half later, cats out of the bag, public for a month. Any content on what Feld thinks? RC? Bondo? NBC exec.  Various others I am leaving out? If they are declining to comment, that is mentioned.

Still right now, this isn't even registering on major media outlets "breaking news" sections. I can't accept that "Daniel didn't want to talk about it" was ever a valid excuse. What is the latest on the websites? "RJ Hampshire is emotional because he won" "MXGP of Argentina". Looking at the vital forum, whether you think its unimportant or not, this isn't what people seem to be gravitating towards at the moment. The real answer is they were avoiding it then and they are still avoiding it now.

My suspicion is this. This is not an unfair criticism. Discussion not bash them but to identify a problem and a solution, for whoever out there wants to find one. The media a "groupie syndrome" problem. They are intelligent people. They are not dumb or lazy. This exists because we have a small sport, you can alienate people easily and then you are "blacklisted" from resources necessary to do your job. However, they must overcome this and be innovative to do so. You do not need to re-invent the wheel. Look to how other journalists handle this problem. You have the duty to you publication, your boss and the customer to maximize the interest for your publication and make them money.

 

phatfi20 wrote:

To start: I have a lot of respect to Michael Lindsey. Super intelligent. Can't question his motivation ever. Started a freaking race team. 99.9% always has...

To start: I have a lot of respect to Michael Lindsey. Super intelligent. Can't question his motivation ever. Started a freaking race team. 99.9% always has the correct take. Answers intelligent questions on this forum and is undoubtedly popular and is an irreplaceable asset. ML is pro "free speech" and does not censor fair criticism here. We know his predecessor's censorship was North Korean dictator level and you would not be reading half of what you read here if it were up to him. He is no longer a journalist in the sport either.  ML is respectfully addressing my fair criticism head on. I love that. My opinion on ML is improved due to that....but this is a fair criticism of the entire media. I am not the first one to point it out.

With that said. How does any story get written when one party doesn't want to talk about it? It is not novel predicament that media member has an assignment, must write a story of public interest, but they do no and can not alienate their source. The situation here hinges on your word and friendship to DB. Pretty important in itself. However, in other media forms, the media is writing a story and can literally get their sources killed if they misstep. Think any whistleblower story. Much higher stakes and it is done as a matter of course.

Reporters explore information in an informal setting to get information off the record. They use what they know "off the record" to get what they can get from the source "on the record".. Then they contact as many people with any knowledge as possible to further build the web of knowledge base off the record and "on the record" facts they can safely use in a story/content. on and off the record. They piece together a puzzle of information that way. The "protected" source is never mentioned and no unique information leading back to them is disclosed. When someone doesn't want to comment, you can fairly state, "X was reached for comment and declined". No alienation or making your friends mad. I get this is a small sport.

My criticism is that is misstep one. Content representing this direction should have been done 18 months ago after he was fired. 

Fast forward to January 2025. Daniel went on Gypsy 1 month ago. The excuse, I will respectfully call it, forwarded as of yesterday that "Daniel didn't want to talk about it" has been moot for over a month. One month. I would expected any content to jump to follow up on his revelations as again. Follow up interview with him. Garnering "Clicks" in media is your job and right there for the taking. Whether you care of not personally(you are reading this far), this is a matter of public interest and high engagement. Get with DB, explore the facts that DB wanted shared after Gypsy and provide even more insight. I repeat, no requirement break your word to him or alienate him. Contact direct sources. Anonymous sources. Those close to NBC, FELD. Ex-employees who have no skin in the game. Create a story publishing both sides of the story and if someone chooses not to comment, that is published, they intelligently made that decision and the natural inferences will be made.

For one month, that didn't happen. A year and a half later, cats out of the bag, public for a month. Any content on what Feld thinks? RC? Bondo? NBC exec.  Various others I am leaving out? If they are declining to comment, that is mentioned.

Still right now, this isn't even registering on major media outlets "breaking news" sections. I can't accept that "Daniel didn't want to talk about it" was ever a valid excuse. What is the latest on the websites? "RJ Hampshire is emotional because he won" "MXGP of Argentina". Looking at the vital forum, whether you think its unimportant or not, this isn't what people seem to be gravitating towards at the moment. The real answer is they were avoiding it then and they are still avoiding it now.

My suspicion is this. This is not an unfair criticism. Discussion not bash them but to identify a problem and a solution, for whoever out there wants to find one. The media a "groupie syndrome" problem. They are intelligent people. They are not dumb or lazy. This exists because we have a small sport, you can alienate people easily and then you are "blacklisted" from resources necessary to do your job. However, they must overcome this and be innovative to do so. You do not need to re-invent the wheel. Look to how other journalists handle this problem. You have the duty to you publication, your boss and the customer to maximize the interest for your publication and make them money.

 

Kyzer138 wrote:

Let’s have Will talk to RC and Diffeys teams and give a full report on the subject….

phatfi20 wrote:

To start: I have a lot of respect to Michael Lindsey. Super intelligent. Can't question his motivation ever. Started a freaking race team. 99.9% always has...

To start: I have a lot of respect to Michael Lindsey. Super intelligent. Can't question his motivation ever. Started a freaking race team. 99.9% always has the correct take. Answers intelligent questions on this forum and is undoubtedly popular and is an irreplaceable asset. ML is pro "free speech" and does not censor fair criticism here. We know his predecessor's censorship was North Korean dictator level and you would not be reading half of what you read here if it were up to him. He is no longer a journalist in the sport either.  ML is respectfully addressing my fair criticism head on. I love that. My opinion on ML is improved due to that....but this is a fair criticism of the entire media. I am not the first one to point it out.

With that said. How does any story get written when one party doesn't want to talk about it? It is not novel predicament that media member has an assignment, must write a story of public interest, but they do no and can not alienate their source. The situation here hinges on your word and friendship to DB. Pretty important in itself. However, in other media forms, the media is writing a story and can literally get their sources killed if they misstep. Think any whistleblower story. Much higher stakes and it is done as a matter of course.

Reporters explore information in an informal setting to get information off the record. They use what they know "off the record" to get what they can get from the source "on the record".. Then they contact as many people with any knowledge as possible to further build the web of knowledge base off the record and "on the record" facts they can safely use in a story/content. on and off the record. They piece together a puzzle of information that way. The "protected" source is never mentioned and no unique information leading back to them is disclosed. When someone doesn't want to comment, you can fairly state, "X was reached for comment and declined". No alienation or making your friends mad. I get this is a small sport.

My criticism is that is misstep one. Content representing this direction should have been done 18 months ago after he was fired. 

Fast forward to January 2025. Daniel went on Gypsy 1 month ago. The excuse, I will respectfully call it, forwarded as of yesterday that "Daniel didn't want to talk about it" has been moot for over a month. One month. I would expected any content to jump to follow up on his revelations as again. Follow up interview with him. Garnering "Clicks" in media is your job and right there for the taking. Whether you care of not personally(you are reading this far), this is a matter of public interest and high engagement. Get with DB, explore the facts that DB wanted shared after Gypsy and provide even more insight. I repeat, no requirement break your word to him or alienate him. Contact direct sources. Anonymous sources. Those close to NBC, FELD. Ex-employees who have no skin in the game. Create a story publishing both sides of the story and if someone chooses not to comment, that is published, they intelligently made that decision and the natural inferences will be made.

For one month, that didn't happen. A year and a half later, cats out of the bag, public for a month. Any content on what Feld thinks? RC? Bondo? NBC exec.  Various others I am leaving out? If they are declining to comment, that is mentioned.

Still right now, this isn't even registering on major media outlets "breaking news" sections. I can't accept that "Daniel didn't want to talk about it" was ever a valid excuse. What is the latest on the websites? "RJ Hampshire is emotional because he won" "MXGP of Argentina". Looking at the vital forum, whether you think its unimportant or not, this isn't what people seem to be gravitating towards at the moment. The real answer is they were avoiding it then and they are still avoiding it now.

My suspicion is this. This is not an unfair criticism. Discussion not bash them but to identify a problem and a solution, for whoever out there wants to find one. The media a "groupie syndrome" problem. They are intelligent people. They are not dumb or lazy. This exists because we have a small sport, you can alienate people easily and then you are "blacklisted" from resources necessary to do your job. However, they must overcome this and be innovative to do so. You do not need to re-invent the wheel. Look to how other journalists handle this problem. You have the duty to you publication, your boss and the customer to maximize the interest for your publication and make them money.

 

phatfi20 wrote:

To start: I have a lot of respect to Michael Lindsey. Super intelligent. Can't question his motivation ever. Started a freaking race team. 99.9% always has...

To start: I have a lot of respect to Michael Lindsey. Super intelligent. Can't question his motivation ever. Started a freaking race team. 99.9% always has the correct take. Answers intelligent questions on this forum and is undoubtedly popular and is an irreplaceable asset. ML is pro "free speech" and does not censor fair criticism here. We know his predecessor's censorship was North Korean dictator level and you would not be reading half of what you read here if it were up to him. He is no longer a journalist in the sport either.  ML is respectfully addressing my fair criticism head on. I love that. My opinion on ML is improved due to that....but this is a fair criticism of the entire media. I am not the first one to point it out.

With that said. How does any story get written when one party doesn't want to talk about it? It is not novel predicament that media member has an assignment, must write a story of public interest, but they do no and can not alienate their source. The situation here hinges on your word and friendship to DB. Pretty important in itself. However, in other media forms, the media is writing a story and can literally get their sources killed if they misstep. Think any whistleblower story. Much higher stakes and it is done as a matter of course.

Reporters explore information in an informal setting to get information off the record. They use what they know "off the record" to get what they can get from the source "on the record".. Then they contact as many people with any knowledge as possible to further build the web of knowledge base off the record and "on the record" facts they can safely use in a story/content. on and off the record. They piece together a puzzle of information that way. The "protected" source is never mentioned and no unique information leading back to them is disclosed. When someone doesn't want to comment, you can fairly state, "X was reached for comment and declined". No alienation or making your friends mad. I get this is a small sport.

My criticism is that is misstep one. Content representing this direction should have been done 18 months ago after he was fired. 

Fast forward to January 2025. Daniel went on Gypsy 1 month ago. The excuse, I will respectfully call it, forwarded as of yesterday that "Daniel didn't want to talk about it" has been moot for over a month. One month. I would expected any content to jump to follow up on his revelations as again. Follow up interview with him. Garnering "Clicks" in media is your job and right there for the taking. Whether you care of not personally(you are reading this far), this is a matter of public interest and high engagement. Get with DB, explore the facts that DB wanted shared after Gypsy and provide even more insight. I repeat, no requirement break your word to him or alienate him. Contact direct sources. Anonymous sources. Those close to NBC, FELD. Ex-employees who have no skin in the game. Create a story publishing both sides of the story and if someone chooses not to comment, that is published, they intelligently made that decision and the natural inferences will be made.

For one month, that didn't happen. A year and a half later, cats out of the bag, public for a month. Any content on what Feld thinks? RC? Bondo? NBC exec.  Various others I am leaving out? If they are declining to comment, that is mentioned.

Still right now, this isn't even registering on major media outlets "breaking news" sections. I can't accept that "Daniel didn't want to talk about it" was ever a valid excuse. What is the latest on the websites? "RJ Hampshire is emotional because he won" "MXGP of Argentina". Looking at the vital forum, whether you think its unimportant or not, this isn't what people seem to be gravitating towards at the moment. The real answer is they were avoiding it then and they are still avoiding it now.

My suspicion is this. This is not an unfair criticism. Discussion not bash them but to identify a problem and a solution, for whoever out there wants to find one. The media a "groupie syndrome" problem. They are intelligent people. They are not dumb or lazy. This exists because we have a small sport, you can alienate people easily and then you are "blacklisted" from resources necessary to do your job. However, they must overcome this and be innovative to do so. You do not need to re-invent the wheel. Look to how other journalists handle this problem. You have the duty to you publication, your boss and the customer to maximize the interest for your publication and make them money.

 

ML512 wrote:

Daniel said after Gypsy that's all he wanted to say, it was "over" in his mind and that was it. There wasn't a want to follow...

Daniel said after Gypsy that's all he wanted to say, it was "over" in his mind and that was it. There wasn't a want to follow up on his end. Can't force people to talk. And to Daniel's admission, he still didn't tell his truth on Gypsy anyways. I'm not going to do a story with someone who I know is going to hide details going into it. Not that everyone is truthful when you interview them, but at least you try to go into it with an understanding that they will try.

I can repost his video on our homepage but again, I'm not going to write an feature just quoting him over and over with no additional context. That's not journalism either, that's just reformatting for the sake of clicks. I think people should hear this from Daniel's own mouth, hear his emotion, and draw an opinion from it.

Without context from other parties or comments, it's just reposting for views.

One thing I really think people miss when they compare some of us in moto to a news source like a large newspaper or reporting channel, we aren't 100% investigative journalists. We have a range of duties and projects. I don't drop everything to go after a large drama or big behind the scenes issue. I'll do my work and start digging around, but this isn't "okay, all hands on deck, let's drop everything and spend the next 24 hours straight making this happen". 

We have a duty to perform our weekly and daily features, our deliverables to clients, and work on news stories as they arise in balance.

HonDawg17 wrote:

I'm guessing that NDA from NBC has timed out...

phatfi20 wrote:

There is enormous engagement on this topic on vital and on you tube today.There is enormous fan interest, conviction and support in Daniel Blair.Say what you...

There is enormous engagement on this topic on vital and on you tube today.

There is enormous fan interest, conviction and support in Daniel Blair.

Say what you want about "vitards" and vital forum, but when something is truly controversial occurs, the full time media goes....silent. 

I think this silence does a disservice to Blair's side.

Vital Forum...the common man, 9-5 construction workers and insurance salesmen.

What are the full time salaried media members doing at Racer X, Motocross Action, Pulp MX, TransWorld Motocross, VITAL?

18 months. Zero long form articles. Zero interviews of the players. 

Gypsy was the first we heard anything......a year and a half later.

Why is the media falling so completely short on this?

 

UPDATE: "Daniel did not want to talk about it" is not valid excuse. Daniel has been public for a month after Gypsy.

Currently, 16 hours after his video..the large majority of the media remains silent.

phatfi20 wrote:

To start: I have a lot of respect to Michael Lindsey. Super intelligent. Can't question his motivation ever. Started a freaking race team. 99.9% always has...

To start: I have a lot of respect to Michael Lindsey. Super intelligent. Can't question his motivation ever. Started a freaking race team. 99.9% always has the correct take. Answers intelligent questions on this forum and is undoubtedly popular and is an irreplaceable asset. ML is pro "free speech" and does not censor fair criticism here. We know his predecessor's censorship was North Korean dictator level and you would not be reading half of what you read here if it were up to him. He is no longer a journalist in the sport either.  ML is respectfully addressing my fair criticism head on. I love that. My opinion on ML is improved due to that....but this is a fair criticism of the entire media. I am not the first one to point it out.

With that said. How does any story get written when one party doesn't want to talk about it? It is not novel predicament that media member has an assignment, must write a story of public interest, but they do no and can not alienate their source. The situation here hinges on your word and friendship to DB. Pretty important in itself. However, in other media forms, the media is writing a story and can literally get their sources killed if they misstep. Think any whistleblower story. Much higher stakes and it is done as a matter of course.

Reporters explore information in an informal setting to get information off the record. They use what they know "off the record" to get what they can get from the source "on the record".. Then they contact as many people with any knowledge as possible to further build the web of knowledge base off the record and "on the record" facts they can safely use in a story/content. on and off the record. They piece together a puzzle of information that way. The "protected" source is never mentioned and no unique information leading back to them is disclosed. When someone doesn't want to comment, you can fairly state, "X was reached for comment and declined". No alienation or making your friends mad. I get this is a small sport.

My criticism is that is misstep one. Content representing this direction should have been done 18 months ago after he was fired. 

Fast forward to January 2025. Daniel went on Gypsy 1 month ago. The excuse, I will respectfully call it, forwarded as of yesterday that "Daniel didn't want to talk about it" has been moot for over a month. One month. I would expected any content to jump to follow up on his revelations as again. Follow up interview with him. Garnering "Clicks" in media is your job and right there for the taking. Whether you care of not personally(you are reading this far), this is a matter of public interest and high engagement. Get with DB, explore the facts that DB wanted shared after Gypsy and provide even more insight. I repeat, no requirement break your word to him or alienate him. Contact direct sources. Anonymous sources. Those close to NBC, FELD. Ex-employees who have no skin in the game. Create a story publishing both sides of the story and if someone chooses not to comment, that is published, they intelligently made that decision and the natural inferences will be made.

For one month, that didn't happen. A year and a half later, cats out of the bag, public for a month. Any content on what Feld thinks? RC? Bondo? NBC exec.  Various others I am leaving out? If they are declining to comment, that is mentioned.

Still right now, this isn't even registering on major media outlets "breaking news" sections. I can't accept that "Daniel didn't want to talk about it" was ever a valid excuse. What is the latest on the websites? "RJ Hampshire is emotional because he won" "MXGP of Argentina". Looking at the vital forum, whether you think its unimportant or not, this isn't what people seem to be gravitating towards at the moment. The real answer is they were avoiding it then and they are still avoiding it now.

My suspicion is this. This is not an unfair criticism. Discussion not bash them but to identify a problem and a solution, for whoever out there wants to find one. The media a "groupie syndrome" problem. They are intelligent people. They are not dumb or lazy. This exists because we have a small sport, you can alienate people easily and then you are "blacklisted" from resources necessary to do your job. However, they must overcome this and be innovative to do so. You do not need to re-invent the wheel. Look to how other journalists handle this problem. You have the duty to you publication, your boss and the customer to maximize the interest for your publication and make them money.

 

ML512 wrote:

Daniel said after Gypsy that's all he wanted to say, it was "over" in his mind and that was it. There wasn't a want to follow...

Daniel said after Gypsy that's all he wanted to say, it was "over" in his mind and that was it. There wasn't a want to follow up on his end. Can't force people to talk. And to Daniel's admission, he still didn't tell his truth on Gypsy anyways. I'm not going to do a story with someone who I know is going to hide details going into it. Not that everyone is truthful when you interview them, but at least you try to go into it with an understanding that they will try.

I can repost his video on our homepage but again, I'm not going to write an feature just quoting him over and over with no additional context. That's not journalism either, that's just reformatting for the sake of clicks. I think people should hear this from Daniel's own mouth, hear his emotion, and draw an opinion from it.

Without context from other parties or comments, it's just reposting for views.

One thing I really think people miss when they compare some of us in moto to a news source like a large newspaper or reporting channel, we aren't 100% investigative journalists. We have a range of duties and projects. I don't drop everything to go after a large drama or big behind the scenes issue. I'll do my work and start digging around, but this isn't "okay, all hands on deck, let's drop everything and spend the next 24 hours straight making this happen". 

We have a duty to perform our weekly and daily features, our deliverables to clients, and work on news stories as they arise in balance.

TeamGreen wrote:

List of Editorial Responsibilities 

1. Pit Bits

2. Everything-else 

wicksy85 wrote:

Gee, people get caught up in shit so deep these days.

Shit happened, words were said

Move along people and get on with your own lives 🤣🤣

ML512 wrote:

Just got off the phone with Daniel a little bit ago and this exact topic came up. Even he said it's not on any of us...

Just got off the phone with Daniel a little bit ago and this exact topic came up. Even he said it's not on any of us in media. Myself, Steve, Weege, etc have all talked to him about it as friends and he hasn't wanted any of it aired until now. He said himself he chose to go on Gypsy to talk in long-form about it and chose today to say his truth on his platform. He was more thankful that none of us that he spoke to as friends ousted his position on all this.

As I stated in the other thread, sometimes you can't do anything in media because you also have friends who want to talk to you as a friend. Sometimes you have to take the work hat off and be a friend, not a megaphone for everything you are told.

MadddogBob wrote:

...and from the context of morality that was admirable.But that's the difference between Journalism and "Moto" journalism. Conflict of interest there. I'm not saying you're not...

...and from the context of morality that was admirable.

But that's the difference between Journalism and "Moto" journalism. Conflict of interest there. I'm not saying you're not a true Journalist unless you betray your friend, I'm saying real Journalists dig when they know there's a story there. They find their sources and corroborate. They don't sit back because it's their "buddy" involved. I think that's what's so frustrating for us fans on the "outside" of the industry looking in.

Sometimes it's glaringly obvious that industry insiders don't realize what a bad look this type of moto journalism is.

Rationalize it all you want, but it gets insulting after a while. We're not idiots.

Gimmea2Smoke wrote:

ML says: "Without context from other parties or comments, it's just reposting for views"Vital says: "Well, pretty sure RC, Feld, NBC, Bondo, and Diffy are all...

ML says: "Without context from other parties or comments, it's just reposting for views"

Vital says: "Well, pretty sure RC, Feld, NBC, Bondo, and Diffy are all related parties. Maybe get THEM to comment so we can hear from the other parties!" 

ML512 wrote:

I already commented on this. Yes, I will ask. I can’t drop absolutely everything I work on to spend the next two days trying to get...

I already commented on this. Yes, I will ask. I can’t drop absolutely everything I work on to spend the next two days trying to get all these answers.

The Deegan / Lawrence AuSX thing? Spent two full days completely ignoring all my other work to get that even most of the way through. (That was in off season, this is not)

Deegan bike claim? Over 12 hours of calls and interviews.

I literally stayed up for 48 hours working over the weekend on race coverage, photos, travel, etc. Gimme a break people.

Gimmea2Smoke wrote:

ML says: "Without context from other parties or comments, it's just reposting for views"Vital says: "Well, pretty sure RC, Feld, NBC, Bondo, and Diffy are all...

ML says: "Without context from other parties or comments, it's just reposting for views"

Vital says: "Well, pretty sure RC, Feld, NBC, Bondo, and Diffy are all related parties. Maybe get THEM to comment so we can hear from the other parties!"