You are reading a single comment by @gbj_tester and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
for many decades the medias' agenda has been anti cyclesport
They were never against it, they just didn't see the point of writing about it since so few readers cared.
It's not even the case that they ignored it completely, although coverage seemed to drop off as kickball exploded from something people went to see in person to a media driven commercial behemoth, and at the same time minority sports got their own media thanks in part to the magazine boom enabled by DTP
gbj_tester
clubman
Well, this is a plausible and possible explanation, but I feel it gives too much credence to the idea that 'news' in newspapers has much connection with real life events.
'A newspaper contains as many of its proprietor's opinions as his advertisers will allow him to print.'
I've delayed this post because I've wasted a lot of time trying to discover who wrote this (it certainly wasn't me -it's far too clever for that). However I feel it may give at least a clue to what's going on. Essentially there's very little money in the bike trade when compared to the motor industry and its associates (roadbuilding etc).
I think it may not be generally understood that newspapers have an 'agenda'. This may be long term (eg Telegraph = Tory, Guardian = Remain/rejoin), but there are also transient threads - e.g. electric scooters are fun! The Guardian is not keen on cyclesport, but when the subject is a feisty woman their ears prick up:
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/feb/21/ethel-brambleby-obituary
What chance of publication for a not terribly succesful male racing cyclist's obit ?
So, my point is that for many decades the medias' agenda has been anti cyclesport. I believe that it's now just possible that cycling's green credentials might change this and it's up to us to push for change.