F1 Fanatic

There are more and more accusations of the main site showing bias usually towards certain drivers and I’m a bit perplexed by it as I think this is quite possibly the most balanced F1 site.

I just wondered how many of you thought there was some bias influencing the articles and why you think that? And how many of you are as confused by it all as much as me?

Australians getting mad because the English are going to beat them (again)?

Just kidding, it’s what sw6569 said, people cant think of a reasonable argument, or cant understand another viewpoint, so they bring out the ‘bias’ card. A lot of the champion of champions comments have had people saying things like ‘I’m a ___ fan so I voted for him’, Raikkonen especially, but it only seems to be an issue when Hamilton’s involved.

well, of course its been around – this site isn’t a private members club! But as soon as you throw around the idea that Senna might be better or worse than someone, in come the fanboys and it becomes worse. I’m aware, that by stereotyping, i’m as bad as them right now, but unfortunately its quite true!

Yes but those that do seem to have this need to rub it in other people’s faces. I have no problem with articles that are clearly non biased but there are some that you can’t deny are slightly affected by one’s views. It’s not a big deal, but when someone displays bias towards a driver who causes more controversy then Paris Hilton and George Bush combined, then you can see why it annoys me.

I don’t think anything Keith writes is biased, and if it is it is usuallly well informed (with evidence to back up the bias). It’s usually the comments that are biased, but can we really help that, as fans it is very hard to be neutral as much as we all try. I am probably one of the biggest Alonso bashers on the site because I am a huge Hamilton fan, I do try to say something nice about him now and again!

Everybody has bias. It’s part of human nature. The only way a news source can be completely objective is by simply reporting results. If you think a site is completely neutral, than your bias and theirs are similar. Alternatively, people who cry bias all the time usually have a strong bias in the opposite direction, so calling bias is hypocritical.

Keith tries very hard to please everyone, but he can’t be completely neutral if he wants to provide analysis and comment on various aspects of the sport. Personally, I don’t mind whether he’s biased or not, I come here to read the opinions of a man with an extremely deep and diverse understanding and passion for the sport. If I wanted objective fact reporting, I would read a news article written by someone who is forced to write an article about a sport they don’t follow.

If you don’t like anything that Keith has written on account of it being biased, you’re entitled to disagree, and if possible provide evidence and reason to support your position (which is something Keith does in his articles). Don’t simply write “He’s biased” without any supporting evidence, because it makes you look like a tool.

The great thing about this site is the freedom to express true opinions about the events of the sport. It’s refreshing to see someone articulate intelligently what they think. It would be rather boring if everyone just agreed with each other all the time. If you dislike people who hold opinions other than your own, you’re a closed minded individual. Personally, I like being able to get a feel of what different types of fans think, and then develop my own opinions from there.

Well first of all there is no way that Keith does not try his hardest to eliminate any personal bias. We can all agree on that.

Secondly, bias does not always equate an inability to think of a rational argument. Given my gravatar, you might think you know all the reasons why I voted for Hill against Senna in Round 1 of CoC. But I actually took the time to explain my reasoning and why I voted for the other Hill, whom I have far less of an attachment to, in Round 2. I would have voted for half of the drivers in the CoC had they come up against Senna for the very same reasons I stated, whether they be Jenson Button or Mika Hakkinen.

I am always aware of my own biases and try to moderate them in what I say. Just because I want Hamilton to win a race, it does not stop me saying that he would need to be lucky to do so after qualifying 4th instead of making up excuses for why he’s not on pole. I’d provide an argument for how his luck could pan out. Similarly I don’t vote automatic 10s (I’ve never voted a 10, I consider them very sacred and a race has to meet all sorts of requirements) just because he wins, which is my biggest bugbear when it comes to bias, especially when people are all too ready to throw it back when people vote 9s in a race when someone else won.

The only kind of bias that annoys me is the kind that leaves no room for balance. It was Hamilton’s fault Alonso left McLaren for this, this and this reason and at no stage did Alonso ever do anything wrong (conversely, the kind of opinion that blames Alonso 100%). The rest I can live with, because people are people. As someone who supported Schumacher for 10 years, I feel I’ve earned the right to support a British driver, but his nationality isn’t the reason I’m an actual <i>fan</i> of his.

Polishboy, what article are you referring to?

The allegations arise whenever Keith writes anything good about a British driver, its pretty annoying to be honest. Even if Keith’s race review only contained the following line to sum up their involvement in the weekend some folks would be able to find bias in it: “Jenson Button and Lewis Hamilton took part in the Singapore Grand Prix.”