Journalism and cycling

tomasrojo

I saw this the other day:

But the paper’s reliable fallback posture of professional managerial entitlement does unlock one central feature of the Times worldview: It explains why the people who run the paper react to having this pointed out to them by people on Twitter with one or another variation of do you have any idea who you’re talking to?

https://www.eschatonblog.com/2019/08/the-intended-audience.html

It's the New York Times, but I guess they had similar legacies in their respective spheres. And they're both not really all that progressive anymore.

mr spuckler

magicbastarder wrote: »

and that's what's curious about the piece in question. there's no suggestion that he's actually a journalist.
am i to believe that the IT commissioned this piece off him? or did he initiate this, and want his piece published?

i would also be very curious as to whether this gets near the print edition. the online and print editions are probably very different beasts, but the behaviour of one contaminates the other.

I liked his response on Twitter - "anyone can write an opinion piece for the paper", completely ignoring the privilege attached to being a former NED :pac:

Moflojo

Cyclists need to learn to take criticism to win friends

Let's break the headline down:

1. "Cyclists" = Get that in first, grab people's attention. Don't hide it any deeper in the headline.

2. "need to learn" = Cyclists are thick, or "I know better than them."

3. "take criticism" = Implication that the criticism is valid and justified, or that cyclist behaviour is consistently poor and requires correction.

4. "to win friends" = The implication is that cyclists don't have many (or enough) friends. It reinforces a passive acceptance that it's ok not to like people who ride bicycles.

It's a real doozie of a headline!

plodder

mr spuckler wrote: »

I liked his response on Twitter - "anyone can write an opinion piece for the paper", completely ignoring the privilege attached to being a former NED :pac:

That's true in terms of getting published, but his point is that columns are often written by people who aren't journalists. I don't see why that's an issue at all.

I don't get Twitter I have to confess though. It just brings out the worst in people, and I can't get my head around how people think anything useful can come out of it. The one thing I take issue with in his piece is extrapolating from his treatment on Twitter to cyclists in general. I also think he says all the right things about encouraging cycling etc, but he doesn't see himself as a cyclist. There is quite a clear demarcation in the piece with "cyclists" as a group of others. As most people here know that makes as much sense as regarding pedestrians as a single group to be criticised or praised as a whole.

That said, I used to know the guy in college three decades ago. We were in the same class. He's sound enough and I don't think there's any agenda at play here. He was recounting his own experience which he is entitled to do.

Chips Lovell

Have people actually read the piece? Because I don't think he's being unreasonable. The way I read it, it was not directed at cyclists per se, but rather the militant fringe that are very active on social media who conflate criticizing bad cycling with hostility towards all cycling and who seem to think that unless you always condemn bad driving in the same breath as bad cycling, you're somehow condoning bad driving.

This line in particular gets to the nub of what he's saying

The willingness of people to extrapolate from something that was said and then to criticise and sit in judgment on something that was never said and never intended is remarkable.

magicbastarder

plodder wrote: »

That's true in terms of getting published, but his point is that columns are often written by people who aren't journalists. I don't see why that's an issue at all.

all granted - but i would fall off my chair with surprise if they'd published that had it been written by an ordinary joe soap. that article is the sort of thing suited to the letters page - because that's pretty much what it is - rather than being published as an insightful opinion piece.

Tombo2001

plodder wrote: »

That's true in terms of getting published, but his point is that columns are often written by people who aren't journalists. I don't see why that's an issue at all.

I don't get Twitter I have to confess though. It just brings out the worst in people, and I can't get my head around how people think anything useful can come out of it. The one thing I take issue with in his piece is extrapolating from his treatment on Twitter to cyclists in general. I also think he says all the right things about encouraging cycling etc, but he doesn't see himself as a cyclist. There is quite a clear demarcation in the piece with "cyclists" as a group of others. As most people here know that makes as much sense as regarding pedestrians as a single group to be criticised or praised as a whole.

That said, I used to know the guy in college three decades ago. We were in the same class. He's sound enough and I don't think there's any agenda at play here. He was recounting his own experience which he is entitled to do.

hmmm...

Anyone can write an opinion piece.

However, to write an opinion piece in the paper is quite a different matter.

He is using a national newspaper essentially to win an argument that he didn't want to be part of on twitter.

For sure he is making some valid points; but in its essence he is airing a grievance here.

magicbastarder

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Have people actually read the piece? Because I don't think he's being unreasonable.

as mentioned above, he's continuing his argument on twitter in a national newspaper (possibly just in the online edition).
'someone was an idiot on twitter' or 'someone misunderstood a point on twitter and they shouldn't do that' is not the basis for an opinion piece in a national newspaper.

Chips Lovell

magicbastarder wrote: »

...is not the basis for an opinion piece in a national newspaper.

Oh I'd agree. I think Twitter is a monumental waste of time. But that's not what's getting people exercised though. It's the fact that it involves some cyclists, not Twitter.

magicbastarder

if he had done it in relation to a spat on trans issues, he'd be catching flak on the LGBTI forum. a 'not this **** again' reaction. it's understandable that people here would be of a 'did you really have to use anger over cycling to get your point across?' opinion.

this is the part i would have the issue with:

So why is it apparently completely unacceptable to say that cyclists also have responsibilities to themselves and other road users? That they should obey traffic laws and take reasonable steps to protect themselves and other road users such as lights and visible clothing at night?

There are many, many cyclists who are impeccable road users, but it might just help to win (and keep) friends and allies to accept that that’s not universal and we need to be able to have conversations that recognise that.

'completely unacceptable' is absolutely the wrong phrase to use - especially after acknowledging that he received polite agreement as well as hostile disagreement. complete means complete, not that it was a small minority who clashed with him.
and it does kinda lump cyclists together, more a fault of omission than comission.
the second paragraph quoted seems to conflate good cyclists with the inability to have a debate or accept his point; again, most people agree with him, but he seems to be suggesting that cyclists in general do not.

CramCycle

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Have people actually read the piece? Because I don't think he's being unreasonable. The way I read it, it was not directed at cyclists per se, but rather the militant fringe that are very active on social media who conflate criticizing bad cycling with hostility towards all cycling and who seem to think that unless you always condemn bad driving in the same breath as bad cycling, you're somehow condoning bad driving.

This line in particular gets to the nub of what he's saying

I read it, like I said, pointless cliickbait. Mainly to dress down a bunch of people he doesn't know because he couldn't articulate himself well enough to validate his point the first time around, so he made up a different point, with the same aim on a forum where comeback is minimal or any that arrives quite cleverly can be interpreted as fitting into the stereotype he created.

It is an opinion piece though, published to generate clicks as well as validate a former high up in the company. If nothing else, both aims were achieved quite well.

Maybe it is from working in science but it went on for a few paragraphs when he could have gotten over it done in one and I wonder what the point was, and then I realise, it is all the dressing on the side to hide what it really is, not a pro or anti cyclist piece, but a wounded ego that feels he cannot be wrong, and if people who he doesn't know, and sweet FA people at that, cannot accept that, he will choose a platform where it is easier to ignore or cast doubt on their returns.

Chips Lovell

I read that as "completely unacceptable" to the people who were dishing out the abuse to him, not to all cyclists.

magicbastarder

if you read it that way, you're again back to an article being about the opinions of a tiny minority as if they actually matter.

Chips Lovell

I'd agree its a minority. I think most cyclists are fairly reasonable people. I guess what Caulfield may have found striking was this:

In more than 10 years on Twitter, I have never previously blocked or reported anyone for abuse. I have now.

In other words, if you're going to find a tiny minority of loons, this wouldn't be the subject matter you'd expect to draw them out of the woodwork

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

if you read it that way, you're again back to an article being about the opinions of a tiny minority as if they actually matter.

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I'd agree its a minority. I think most cyclists are fairly reasonable people. I guess what Caulfield may have found striking was this:

In other words, if you're going to find a tiny minority of loons, this wouldn't be the subject matter you'd expect to draw them out of the woodwork

Says more about him that he felt so aggrieved by such a small number of people that he felt a response in a national newspaper was warranted. People fail to realise that despite it being mentioned all the time in the news feeds around the world. Twitter actually has quite a small active user base compared to other forms of social media, narrow this down to people who are in Ireland, and regular cyclists, who use twitter, again, even smaller again.

plodder

CramCycle wrote: »

Says more about him that he felt so aggrieved by such a small number of people that he felt a response in a national newspaper was warranted.

My guess is that someone in the IT noticed the spat and asked him to write about it, rather than him "calling in a favour" as some have suggested. It can be hard to fill the pages of the newspapers in August, when all the usual news generators are on their holidays.

Tombo2001

plodder wrote: »

My guess is that someone in the IT noticed the spat and asked him to write about it, rather than him "calling in a favour" as some have suggested. It can be hard to fill the pages of the newspapers in August, when all the usual news generators are on their holidays.

Regardless, by publishing it they are aligning themselves with one side of the argument (cyclists are a nuisance) rather than the other.

His Twitter dispute was over his claim that, "as a regular pedestrian, cyclists are more of a danger to me than cars".

While the response was, in his own words, "extraordinary" - he himself was only guilty of, in his own words, "loose language".

Its all about how you spin it.....that's what Opinion Columns do.

Tombo2001

magicbastarder wrote: »

if he had done it in relation to a spat on trans issues, he'd be catching flak on the LGBTI forum. a 'not this **** again' reaction. it's understandable that people here would be of a 'did you really have to use anger over cycling to get your point across?' opinion.

this is the part i would have the issue with:

'completely unacceptable' is absolutely the wrong phrase to use - especially after acknowledging that he received polite agreement as well as hostile disagreement. complete means complete, not that it was a small minority who clashed with him.
and it does kinda lump cyclists together, more a fault of omission than comission.
the second paragraph quoted seems to conflate good cyclists with the inability to have a debate or accept his point; again, most people agree with him, but he seems to be suggesting that cyclists in general do not.

Yup - it sounds ridiculous I know but.....

Can you imagine them publishing a similar piece about travellers, or about farmers, or about LGBT, or about immigrants.

Not a chance.

The Irish Times is too right on for that.

Easy target.

adrian522

magicbastarder wrote: »

as mentioned above, he's continuing his argument on twitter in a national newspaper (possibly just in the online edition).
'someone was an idiot on twitter' or 'someone misunderstood a point on twitter and they shouldn't do that' is not the basis for an opinion piece in a national newspaper.

It's actually in the print edition too.

plodder

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Regardless, by publishing it they are aligning themselves with one side of the argument (cyclists are a nuisance) rather than the other.

His Twitter dispute was over his claim that, "as a regular pedestrian, cyclists are more of a danger to me than cars".

He's not saying that bikes are more dangerous than cars. He's just saying his experience as a pedestrian is that he feels more put in danger by cyclists than by cars. Cars go on the road and pedestrians don't generally (or he doesn't it would seem). I've no reason to think he just made that up.

While the response was, in his own words, "extraordinary" - he himself was only guilty of, in his own words, "loose language".

Leaving aside that it was twitter, but it's somewhat over the top to be called a "c**t" for stating the above. Though I didn't read the exchange in question and have no intention of reading it.

Tombo2001

plodder wrote: »

He's not saying that bikes are more dangerous than cars. He's just saying his experience as a pedestrian is that he feels more put in danger by cyclists than by cars. Cars go on the road and pedestrians don't generally (or he doesn't it would seem). I've no reason to think he just made that up.

Leaving aside that it was twitter, but it's somewhat over the top to be called a "c**t" for stating the above. Though I didn't read the exchange in question and have no intention of reading it.

We can all turn around saying that we 'feel' more because whatever.

I could write an article saying I 'feel' more at risk from ice cream vans than from cars.

The statistics very clearly show that pedestrians ARE at more risk from cars than from cyclists. Vastly so.

(Of course he himself is a driver; I wouldn't imagine he feels that he is a risk to pedestrians, or is seeking out critical analysis of his driving).

So he should, in my view, challenge his own misinformed views rather than demonising a group that actually pose him little or no danger (when examining any statistical evidence).

And absolutely - nobody likes to be called the C-word. But this is twitter; really - should you be surprised? And should it merit an article in a national newspaper?

Duckjob

plodder wrote: »

Leaving aside that it was twitter, but it's somewhat over the top to be called a "c**t" for stating the above. Though I didn't read the exchange in question and have no intention of reading it.

Disagree with someone over anything on Twitter for long enough and you'll probably be called a c*nt or something similar. That's the Internet. You'll always have those who can debate rationally and those who can't/won't and prefer to just hurl abuse instead.

In his whole paragraph labelled "Abuse" , someone calling him a c*nt is the only thing I would Legimately label as abuse. The rest just sounds like people calling him out on BS.

magicbastarder

irishcycle.com's take on it:

https://irishcycle.com/2019/08/15/cycling-in-the-city-with-friends-like-these-who-need-enemies/

Tombo2001

magicbastarder wrote: »

irishcycle.com's take on it:

https://irishcycle.com/2019/08/15/cycling-in-the-city-with-friends-like-these-who-need-enemies/

Great article to be fair.

Well written AND INFORMED.

Pity it wont feature in a national newspaper.

plodder

Tombo2001 wrote: »

We can all turn around saying that we 'feel' more because whatever.

I could write an article saying I 'feel' more at risk from ice cream vans than from cars.

So, are you saying he doesn't really feel more at risk? I'm guessing you don't actually feel at more risk from ice-cream vans than cars.

The statistics very clearly show that pedestrians ARE at more risk from cars than from cyclists. Vastly so.

Statistics don't account for all individual cases. And if the statistics are based on KSIs then are we saying anything less than a serious injury doesn't matter? Perception is important too. It isn't good enough that the cyclist coming towards you on the path or through the pedestrian crossing knows he can avoid you, when you don't know it.

tomasrojo

The problem with the "I feel more threatened by cyclists than cars" is that you really *have* to be at least subconsciously filtering out all the times they close pass you, or mount the footpath alongside you, or even just all the times you defer to them because you know they're not going to stop. Not to mention all the times you end up walking on the road because somebody with a car has blocked the entire footpath.

I can agree with an idea like "I am more likely to be in a collision with a cyclist", because I think that certainly can be true in a city, probably is true, based on my experience, but all collisions I've had with cyclists are fairly straining the definition of collision, because they're so minor, and the likelihood of being seriously hurt by a car is orders of magnitude higher.

Somewhat cycling related I guess. Nice piece I read today about a refugee who was given a bike as a 5 year old in the 90's and tracked the aid worker down in recent times.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/discover/former-child-refugee-reunited-with-camp-worker-who-gifted-her-a-bike-943849.html

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

The problem with the "I feel more threatened by cyclists than cars" is that you really *have* to be at least subconsciously filtering out all the times they close pass you

i genuinely can't think of anyone i know who was injured by a cyclist on the footpath, or (bike on bike collisions excluded) anywhere else for that matter.
i know plenty of people who were injured in car collisions though, and one friend who was killed.

Moflojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

i genuinely can't think of anyone i know who was injured by a cyclist on the footpath, or (bike on bike collisions excluded) anywhere else for that matter.
i know plenty of people who were injured in car collisions though, and one friend who was killed.

I hadn't thought about it or collated them until now, and I don't want to turn this into a score-keeping thread, but I've known three people who've been killed in motoring collisions.

One I knew from primary school, one from college, and one was a work colleague.

One died as a pedestrian, one as a cyclist, and one as a driver.

None of them lived to see their 21st year.

I'm only in my mid-thirties, for reference.

flatface

I can’t believe cyclists are not only the scourge of the road but now of twitter too!