Jim Clark on Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/fromthearchive/story/0,12269,1187599,00.html Since Hockenheim is so much in the news these days (surprised it didn't make it here, those German pics ...).

Gotta say it seems a very dry, emotionless account. rms

"alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3ga5e.452$[email hidden]... > http://www.guardian.co.uk/fromthearchive/story/0,12269,1187599,00.html > Since Hockenheim is so much in the news these days (surprised it didn't > make it here, those German pics ...). Can't forget the picture of the crash :-( http://eis.net.au/~bramwell/hockenheimcrash.htm

Yes, I felt the same; strange, how times have changed and what we regard as standard journalism has become what would then have been seen as sensationalist. "rms" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kxb5e.20042$[email hidden]... > Gotta say it seems a very dry, emotionless account. > > rms >

>Gotta say it seems a very dry, emotionless account Probably pretty standard for the era, driver deaths were a fairly regular event. If it was some unknown rookie it probably wouldn't have made the national papers...

"Tiny Lund" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3ga5e.452$[email hidden]... >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/fromthearchive/story/0,12269,1187599,00.html >> Since Hockenheim is so much in the news these days (surprised it didn't >> make it here, those German pics ...). > > Can't forget the picture of the crash :-( > http://eis.net.au/~bramwell/hockenheimcrash.htm

Very good picture. All the more poignant that there's a car racing past in the background...

Not really; it's from a time when reporters actually *reported* and didn't garnish their essays with emotive outpourings, personal opinions or the use of indiscriminate adjectives. How pleasant it would be to see such habits reintroduced. Bruce "rms" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kxb5e.20042$[email hidden]... > Gotta say it seems a very dry, emotionless account.

Jeez, I was always told nobody say what happened. Just suddenly he wasn't back in the stadium section when expected and they then searched and found the wrekage. So nobody ever knew what happened. An other myth busted. Although, I guess Senna died a few feet in front of Schumacher, live on TV and still nobdy knows what happened. Rudeboy "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3ga5e.452$[email hidden]... > http://www.guardian.co.uk/fromthearchive/story/0,12269,1187599,00.html > Since Hockenheim is so much in the news these days (surprised it didn'tmake > it here, those German pics ...). > >

I agree completely, Bruce. The alleged goal of "objectivity" of the press has been watered down into oblivion. It is also interesting to see how a totally neutral text speaks to you between the lines ("... (he) was evidently unhappy, according to a race official") and carries it's own set of emotions. ---A--- Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Not really; it's from a time when reporters actually *reported* and didn't > garnish their essays with emotive outpourings, personal opinions or the use > of indiscriminate adjectives. > > How pleasant it would be to see such habits reintroduced. > > Bruce > > "rms" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:kxb5e.20042$[email hidden]... > >>Gotta say it seems a very dry, emotionless account. > > >

It's just a picture of the wreckage. How does that contradict the "myth" that nobody saw what happened? That picture may have been taken minutes or hours after the actual crash... Rudeboy wrote: > Jeez, I was always told nobody say what happened. Just suddenly hewasn't > back in the stadium section when expected and they then searched andfound > the wrekage. So nobody ever knew what happened. > > An other myth busted. > > Although, I guess Senna died a few feet in front of Schumacher, liveon TV

Quoted text (8 lines)

> and still nobdy knows what happened. > > Rudeboy > > > "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3ga5e.452$[email hidden]... > >

http://www.guardian.co.uk/fromthearchive/story/0,12269,1187599,00.html > > Since Hockenheim is so much in the news these days (surprised itdidn't > make > > it here, those German pics ...). > > > >

Asgeir, if that line was being typed today by a so-called journalist, it would read "...Clark was not happy." It would read as a statement of fact, implying that the journo had the information direct from Clark before the race began. There would be no mention at all that it was observed by a race official that Clark appeared to be unhappy. There-in lies the difference, I think, between objective (then) and subjective (now) reporting. All the best to you. Bruce "Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d3j5gt$f9n$[email hidden]... > It is also interesting to see how a totally neutral text speaks to youbetween > the lines ("... (he) was evidently unhappy, according to a race official")and > carries it's own set of emotions.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > It's just a picture of the wreckage. How does that contradict the > "myth" that nobody saw what happened? That picture may have been taken > minutes or hours after the actual crash... > >Not the picture. The story talks about a Policeman and a competitor behind him seeing the leadup to and the actual accident.