Backseat Blonde - Dissent Essential to NASCAR’s Success

Correction to the correction: Racing One WAS purchased by an
ISC subsidiary. Sorry Matt...

February 7, 2005

Dissent Essential to NASCAR’s Success
By Allison Wagda

First, the Speed Channel pulled the plug on the Pit Bulls. Then Racing One’s
resident NASCAR firebrand Matt McLaughlin was
released recently (a temporary setback for him I hope).

What’s a disgruntled fan to do? It seems as if the sport’s media is being
whitewashed to silence all echoes of dissension.

It’s bad enough that the majority of the mainstream media has betrayed the NASCAR
nation by sucking up to the suits in Daytona with propaganda-laden hype
surrounding the massively unpopular Chase for the Championship (or whatever the
heck the marketing folks are calling it this year). Polls continue to show fans dislike
the direction of the sport, yet who remains to give them a voice?

There are a few intrepid writers in the mainstream bold and courageous enough to
tell it like it is rather than pander to the powers that be. Guys like Monte Dutton are
heroes to many of us lowly fans. If you think I’m over dramatizing their courage,
consider they put their careers on the line to speak up. NASCAR has more influence
than you think.

In all fairness (to the mainstream media), one of the things critics risk most is
access. To write truly insightful news stories, reporters need to maintain good
relations with the people behind the scenes. Executives at any major company have
reporters they like and ones they don't. It's not just the NASCAR guys. One of the jobs
of a PR person is to help screen these interview opportunities.

Even if a negative (opinion) story is accurate and fair, reporters can easily find
themselves blacklisted, even if they get to keep their official credentials. Losing
access to the right people and the right information can be detrimental to a
journalism career.

But even with that understanding, the media plays a critical role in the future of
NASCAR and they must hold those in charge of the sport accountable to ensure the
legitimacy of the sport. Otherwise, many of these "sports" writers may just find
themselves writing for the entertainment section of their newspapers.

Did NASCAR's influence cause the demise of Pit Bull on Speed Channel? The Fox-
owned cable network reasoned the cancellation of the program by claiming poor
viewership. The show was one of the last bastions of reality-based racing
commentary available on television today, and was likely a thorn in NASCAR’s side
for daring to differ. Without Pit Bull, will all programming to be like Disney…a lot of
bright lights and flash with little substance intruding upon the fantasy?

To understand how NASCAR could have that sort of power, its helpful to understand
the difference between news and sports broadcasting. News is (supposed to be)
unbiased reporting of facts; news commentary is an independent reporter fairly
balancing the facts and offering an opinion; sports broadcasting these days is purely
entertainment.

Fox Sports is not really a news organization. They produce entertainment events for
television though partnership with companies like NASCAR. The entire production
process is geared toward creating a television event that will attract the largest
number of viewers in order to sell advertising space and sponsorships.

In fact, Fox pays NASCAR big bucks for the rights to offer NASCAR programming to
their viewers. It is not intended to be a news event; Fox does not “cover” the NASCAR
race even if it is packaged for the viewer that way. DW and Larry Mac are not really
journalists; they’re more like hosts.

So Fox can’t afford to cause NASCAR too many headaches, or when contracts are up
for renewal NASCAR could very well take its big ratings over to ABC/ESPN.

And, since Speed is owned by Fox, and Fox has a tenuous and lucrative contract with
NASCAR...draw your own conclusion. A simple e-mail or call from Brian France to
someone over at the corporate headquarters could easily have banished Pit Bull to
the doghouse permanently. It would be that simple.

As for Matt McLaughlin, after following his columns for many months I can easily
understand why some might wish to muzzle him. He’s a brash, entertaining, and
engaging journalist who understands and amplifies many of the frustrations held by
long-time NASCAR fans.

NASCAR may or may not have had a hand in his release, but they were certainly
involved in a deal with RacingOne. A random subsidiary of International Speedway
Corporation (ISC), NASCAR’s sister company, that I’ve never heard of nor could find
any information about, purchased RacingOne quietly, without official statements.

Yet interestingly, right around the same time McLaughlin was let go, a new “insider”
joined the roster, Ron Lemasters Jr. (his first column is dated February).

To readers of NASCAR.com, you may recognize the name from the past as that site’s
“business reporter.” Also noted, Ron's title on NASCAR.com has recently changed
from business reporter to "special to NASCAR.com." That could also be explained by
a career move by Lemasters...he says he has gone freelance. That's
understandable in this current journalism market, but still a little coincidental.

NASCAR.com is operated by Turner Interactive under license from NASCAR. While it
resembles a news site and has excellent and lively content, the writers undoubtedly
understand who ultimately pays the bills. It’s rare to see much blatant criticism of
NASCAR on the site (although one or two writers do manage to occasionally and
overtly reveal a hint of true feelings).

So perhaps some sort of content or media partnership is in the works between the
two entities (RacingOne and NASCAR.com)? We'll just have to wait and see. Let’s
just hope Matt finds a new home soon.

Ideally, NASCAR should encourage the free exchange of ideas and listen to those
who disagree. Quieting the dissenters by blocking access to an audience is a
shortsighted idea and one likely driven by ego rather than sound business sense.
Critics benefit the sport in the long term by keeping disenfranchised fans engaged
enough to stick around. If I’m that frustrated fan and all I read are Pollyanna-ish
accounts of how everyone loves the new NASCAR, I’m going to fade away into the
woodwork…one less ticket to be sold the next season.

But if I can find kinship among other like-minded fans through news stories, I’m still
going to remain interested in the sport – even if I’m mad. Better for the fans to have
negative emotions than none at all.

Plus, it is very easy for a sport to become too popular for its own good, especially
when it happens as fast as in NASCAR’s case. That popularity could be construed
as a fad, which is the ultimate kiss of death. NASCAR’s critics keep the sport from
becoming so caught up in itself it loses touch with what made it so great in the first
place.

It’s like politics. You need both extreme positions in order to find the truth, which
typically falls somewhere in the middle. Between the conspiracy-minded critics (like
me) and NASCAR’s force of public relations reps, fans get all the information they
need to decide how they feel for themselves.

And now, as we head into the 2005 season, it will be harder than ever.

Have a comment? Post it in our new forum or e-mail me!

© Copyright 2004 BackseatBlonde.com. All Rights Reserved, Any copying, redistribution or
retransmission of any of the contents of this service without the express written consent of
BackseatBlonde.com is expressly prohibited. Backseat Blonde columns are the musings and
thoughts of one person, and I encourage you to think for yourself. I'm not always right.