This type of error would typically result in a journalist being dismissed or suspended or reprimanded in most reputable news organizations, which F1.com is supposed to be, and therefore should be ethically impeccable.
However, if there were an “F1 media ethics committee” (possibly the FIA), it would be beneficial for them to investigate whether there are any hidden problems or, alternatively, acknowledge the sheer ignorance of the reporter and the editorial team who assigned him the task.
We are not discussing a small, insignificant website here. We are referring to the official F1 website, which is owned by the Formula One Group, a subsidiary of Liberty Media, with CEO Stefano Domenicali at the helm as the commercial rights owner. In other words, they are the mouthpiece of the sport.
In a post published on F1.com, written by Barretto and titled “Driver Market: What options do Mercedes have after Hamilton’s dramatic Ferrari move?”, the first driver a racing team would logically consider is the reserve driver. In this case, at Mercedes, it is Mick Schumacher, the team’s F1 reserve driver.
While it can be debated whether he is suitable or not, Barretto (along with his editors, proofreaders, etc.) has an obligation to include his name on the list. However, they fail to do so and instead seem to promote an agenda that aligns with their own narrative, completely disregarding Mick Schumacher.
I can present a strong argument (which I will do in another Outside Line article) that Toto Wolff might consider Mick to partner with Russell. However, that is a discussion for another time.
This piece focuses on how the mainstream F1 media manipulates the narrative to suit their own agenda, disregarding Schumacher is a neglect of their responsibility as the mouthpiece of our sport. Barretto has his own agenda, is very uninformed about the current F1 driver landscape, or made a mistake that his entire editorial team failed to notice, including the site’s editor.
When assigning Barretto, the editor should have asked something along the lines of: Who will be the driver to replace Lewis at Mercedes? Who is their reserve driver?
That is exactly what our editor, Jad Mallak, stated in our NewsDesk Unplugged YouTube video (below) when we discussed this exact topic of who would secure the Mercedes seat and when the Hamilton to Ferrari F1 Story of the Century broke.
This article on how the British media controls the narrative has been in the works for some time. Sky F1 has been the dominant narrator of our sport in this era, and for many years, the British agenda has been evident to unbiased observers like us. They consistently push their perspective, from teams to drivers and everything in between. They believe they have complete control over the narrative.
However, they can never accomplish this as long as independent Formula 1 news websites like ours, and a few others (although not too many) expose them for their wrongdoings. This particular instance is the most obvious and blatant by their team!
To clarify and emphasize, Sky F1 did NOT break the groundbreaking news of “Hamilton to Mercedes”. It was actually picked up by them from Italian media, who were the first to report the news of “Ferrari signing Hamilton”. It is important to note the distinction: for the British, it is about Hamilton going to Ferrari, while for the rest of the world, it is about Ferrari opening the door to Lewis.
Therefore, the vacant and highly coveted seat on the Formula 1 grid from 2025, belonging to Mercedes, needs to be filled. F1.com, with Barretto leading the charge, has announced their own driver plan for George Russell’s seat.
The omission of Mick Schumacher from that report is so glaring that our colleagues at F1-Insider called out Barretto for his biased reporting instead of providing objective information.
Under the headline on F1-Insider: Hamilton successor: Is Schumacher not even on Mercedes’ radar? Frederik Hackbarth wrote: “Ironically, the official Formula 1 website even published a list of potential candidates for Hamilton’s successor on Friday, and the name Schumacher was conspicuously absent. There is no doubt that opinions may be divided about Mick Schumacher’s talent after his challenging years at Haas, but not even mentioning the official third driver of a team is simply audacious.
“As much as German Formula 1 fans may find author Lawrence Barretto’s ignorance offensive, it only demonstrates a narrow-minded British perspective on the few remaining German works teams. These teams are represented by their headquarters in Brackley and Brixworth, the entry point of Ineos -Founder and recently Manchester United co-owner Jim Ratcliffe, and of course, the British driver duo Hamilton/Russell. In recent years, this perspective has become increasingly wrapped in the Union Jack.”
Bravo Frederik! For speaking out and echoing what we all see. Thank you for highlighting this issue and shedding light on why mainstream media, even in Formula 1, promotes and manipulates its own agenda without regard for logic and with obvious malicious intent.
Barretto and the entire F1.com team: Hang your heads in shame! Or apologize for an inexplicable mistake that raises serious doubts about the editorial leadership of Formula 1’s most important website. The obligation to remain neutral means showing no bias whatsoever.
Does Stefano Domenicali not agree?