The murky Red Bull Formula 1 situation

Read the papers two days before the Hockenheim Grand Prix, and you’ll be utterly confused about what’s transpiring at the Austrian owned Red Bull F1 team and its two drivers, Sebastian Vettel and Mark Webber.

After the dispute over the last race (when Vettel lost it at the start when attacking Webber too aggressively), some media are reporting all is well with Red Bull, while others are reporting about Vettel’s plan for revenge, and an ongoing war within the team.

Red Bull owner Mateschitz’ directive this week obviously did not put out the fire. Not a good idea. My prediction: they will continue fighting internally and loose the championship to McLaren.

All the coverage on Red Bull F1

Share

Top Secret America

The Washington Post has created an astounding project to explore media delivery in the digital age. It combines Video, text, interactive graphics, just about everything that you’d like to check out on your iPad (or your PC, of course). I love these glimpses of the future. And the topic is piping hot as well.

Top Secret America from the Washington Post

Share

Porno in the apology ad that was never prohibited anyway?

After the big outcry by just about everybody and their dog, I read an article in the Bangkok Post yesterday that tried to spin the story (from the censors’ side) in the following way:

The review board said it actually never prohibited the apology ad, but rather just marked about 20 seconds of the 150 sec commercial that needed to be edited out – some violence, some scenes that were sensitive because of religious context, some pornographic material. I had to watch the whole commercial again – the pornographic part must have been  the guy in his turquoise underpants taunting the soldiers, else I could not find the slightest hint of porn or what the Thais deem porn. Ridiculous allegations, all of them, but you grow accustomed to the fact that the Thai film censors must be born in the 19th century.

If I remember correctly, the edits were marked and sent to the producers, in no way prohibited. But what else than a de facto prohibition is this kind of censorship that takes out 20 seconds of a 150 second commercial of rather harmless and, more important, true material?

And where else but in Thailand would anybody spin the facts in a way that it hurts just to read the story, as it certainly can’t be true. This statement was just to keep their face. Better to tell a total lie (“No, we never prohibited this.”) than say “OK, we will review this again.” or even “Sorry, my bad, should not have happened viagra price in india generic cialis india pharmacy.” The piece in the Post made all this clear.

So clear that today I could not find it any more. The story is gone. Deleted from the files, not on the regular website any more, neither on the mobile site. Obviously, even the guys that wanted to keep face realized that this was just too stupid for anybody to believe, so somehow they managed to pull the article. (Or could it be that the BKK Post editors only do their job after the articles are published on the web?).

In any case, it’s egg on everyone’s face by now, and to be frank, would you like to keep your face when there’s already egg on it?

Read up on the affair at Bangkok Post and thaivisa.com, which also contains the article “We can all say sorry, not just the other people” from The Nation which I could not read because it is premium paid content only for subscribers. But that’s another story.

Share