You are reading a single comment by @peter_v and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
I understand there's beef, after insinuations and badly twisted headlines from the press and lots of smoke and mirrors on Sky's part in return, and there always will be, probably.
But the question Sky should ask themselves is how does this help cycling to become more transparent and credible. I don't think blacklisting journalists is the way to go, no matter how much you hate them. And now not giving the traditional presser is practically blacklisting all journo's.
peter_v
And lots of UK journalists getting vexed about this.
I don't want to come across as a Sky apologist, but is anyone really surprised that the management at Sky don't want to be accommodating to the press? In past years they've been remarkably open, yet all they've been asked about over and over and over, is whether they are clean or not. Everything they say is analysed and twisted to suit a narrative, so it's no surprise, to me at least, that they've decided to not engage this year.
As an example, look at the Telegraph today. In it, the headline says that Froome denies his collision with Aru. If you actually read the article he clearly says it happened but it was accidental, yet the headline is twisted to fit a narrative.