I liked the article. As a male and engineer, it left me thirsty for details that she glossed over, but it was a great fish-out-of-water story.
The real shame is that an article can be vanished like that. Not so long ago, once it was printed it was printed and if you had the magazine in your possession nobody could retract its contents, as far as you're concerned.
Well, it can't, right? Even if the Internet Archive takes it down after the publisher asks, there are other archive sites that thumb their noses at such requests.
It depends. If you're Road and Track you can at least make it very difficult for anyone to find the damned thing and very legally perilous for people to say what sketchy archive site has a true and correct copy of the article.
OK, stereotypical male, then. Who hungers for a more detailed description of the stripped-down (no fairings) race car, and is more mildly interested in descriptions of showing up at a gala dinner in a thrift store outfit (though that was still entertaining).
This article is like nothing I've ever read before. In a time of algorithms and social media bubbles, something like this is a breath of goddamn fresh air to be honest.
I've been an F1 fan for years, but also someone who presumably cares about the environment and has concerns over the growing wealth-gap. Those things are hard to reconcile just to be entertained.
I'm curious about the editorial process that led to it being published and then pulled. In a traditional journalism outfit at least two editors would have worked on this story and approved it over days or weeks. Maybe that process is streamlined for the Internet era but I don't think of Road & Track being a clickbait publish anything outfit. Who approved the article, then pulled it without even leaving a comment?
For the second half of your question, here's the editor of Road and Track trying to explain why he pulled the article:
The story was taken down because I felt it was the wrong story for our publication. No one from the brands or organizations mentioned in the story put any sort of pressure on me or anyone else. In fact, I heard nothing at all from anyone on the story. No contact whatsoever.
It was unfortunate and I can understand how people might jump to the conclusion that pressure of some sort was brought to bear. It wasn’t. Truth is, when the story was assigned, written and edited I was Executive Editor of Road & Track, not EIC. I was dealing almost exclusively with the print magazine. The story had been assigned and edited by the digital team. Had I been aware of the story I would have put a stop to it long before it ever posted.
I’m afraid this is a much more mundane situation than you might have imagined.
Absolutely a joy to read. Reminds me of "Consider the Lobster" by David Foster Wallace. She also covers cycling, and let me tell you that skewering teams and sponsors is the norm in cycling journalist, so I'm not sure why people have to be so deferential in motorsport. Actually I do know. It's cause they are rich ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That, and all of the writers are angling for a gig at one of the magazines that exists only to get test drives and publish glowing reviews of those test drives.
I learned of the article via Rusty Foster’s “Today in Tabs” a couple days ago. His summary of the situation is really great and concise. https://www.todayintabs.com/p/turn-around-over-here (starts a few paragraphs down, but Rusty’s a great writer so maybe just read from the top)
I'm not OP, but had I seen that I would have skipped this entire thread. I have nearly zero interest in what a socialist critic who normally covers cycling thinks about F1, its sponsors, or anyone else involved with the sport (or their thoughts on equestrian sports, sailing, offshore powerboat racing, air racing, or polo for that matter).
The magazine's EIC was right: the article had no place in an enthusiast's magazine, well-written or not. Mother Jones or similar would be an ideal place for it. I wonder if the online editors who approved it were trying to move towards a politicized editorial tone more typified by Jalopnik [0] than Road & Track.
Readit News
The real shame is that an article can be vanished like that. Not so long ago, once it was printed it was printed and if you had the magazine in your possession nobody could retract its contents, as far as you're concerned.
its power is not limitless though (yet) so you can't save every article
huh?
I've been an F1 fan for years, but also someone who presumably cares about the environment and has concerns over the growing wealth-gap. Those things are hard to reconcile just to be entertained.
The story was taken down because I felt it was the wrong story for our publication. No one from the brands or organizations mentioned in the story put any sort of pressure on me or anyone else. In fact, I heard nothing at all from anyone on the story. No contact whatsoever.
It was unfortunate and I can understand how people might jump to the conclusion that pressure of some sort was brought to bear. It wasn’t. Truth is, when the story was assigned, written and edited I was Executive Editor of Road & Track, not EIC. I was dealing almost exclusively with the print magazine. The story had been assigned and edited by the digital team. Had I been aware of the story I would have put a stop to it long before it ever posted.
I’m afraid this is a much more mundane situation than you might have imagined.
https://defector.com/road-track-eic-tries-to-explain-why-he-...
Deleted Comment
A gig you won't get skewering manufacturers.
The magazine's EIC was right: the article had no place in an enthusiast's magazine, well-written or not. Mother Jones or similar would be an ideal place for it. I wonder if the online editors who approved it were trying to move towards a politicized editorial tone more typified by Jalopnik [0] than Road & Track.
[0] https://jalopnik.com/cash-strapped-donald-trump-wants-the-mo...