Formula 1's broadcast narrative problem

Or: what happens when you take radio messages out of context

By this point, it should come as no surprise that the driver radio messages that air during a Formula 1 broadcast are injected to create a narrative. Formula One Management (FOM), the body that oversees the sport's commercial rights, selects the messages it feels are most relevant to the ongoing race action, censors any curse words, then sticks them into the broadcast after a delay.

Now, when I say “create a narrative” here, I'm not talking about inventing falsehoods or intentionally twisting events to make it seem as if something is happening that isn't actually happening.

I’m talking about crafting a story about the race, which is what any good broadcast should do. Radio replays are just one tool the FOM has at its disposal when it comes to informing viewers what's happening during the race. Other tools include diverse camera angles, commentators, graphics packages, and video replays of overtakes. The radio interjections are a seriously fascinating way for viewers at home to gain deeper insight into a race.

But because those audios are injected on a delay, they necessarily require curation and forethought. When you hear a replay of a radio message, you are hearing it because the FOM wanted you to hear it. I don't mean that in a conspiratorial sense; I simply mean that someone heard something and thought, “Oh, I think that audio [explains a strategy / highlights a driver's mood / has championship implications / is funny], and I think fans would like to hear that.”

(If you know where to look, you can find full radio transcripts after the race, or follow social media accounts that share every message from a certain driver. This stuff isn't a secret, it's just not really packaged and pushed out for an audience because most of it is very boring.)

However, we've been facing some ongoing backlash about driver radio messages. On one hand, you have Mohammed Ben Sulayem, president of the FIA, threatening to sanction drivers for cursing on the radio (when the target shouldn't be the drivers cursing under pressure, but the FOM, which determines what messages to share). On the other, you have races like the Chinese Grand Prix, and the unintentional creation of a false narrative.

What happened in China

Lewis Hamilton started the Chinese Grand Prix ahead of Charles Leclerc, but as the race progressed, he understood that his teammate had more pace. So, Hamilton radioed the team to say, “I think I'm going to let Charles go, because I'm struggling.”

That message went unaired.

Also unaired was a message from the team suggesting Hamilton just manage his tires, and that the best place to swap would be Turn 14.

One message that was aired was a second one from Riccardo Adami to Hamilton telling him to let Leclerc by at T14… except this time, both Ferraris had just passed the Aston Martin of Lance Stroll, which pushed Leclerc out of DRS range.

As a result, Hamilton's response — “when he's closer, yes” — came across as the seven-time champion being a bad teammate.

At that point, Hamilton asked if he could have another lap before the swap, because he felt he was cutting down the gap to George Russell.

As a result, when Riccardo Adami requested, “We want to swap this lap. Swap now,” Hamilton responded, “I’ll tell you when we can swap.” Two corners later, on lap 21, the seven-time champion made way for his teammate at what he felt was a better opportunity to do so.

With the full transcript available, the exchange between Hamilton and his race engineer is pretty tame. It's standard “driver wants a chance to prove himself but isn't going to harm the team to do so” stuff.

But when you just hear Hamilton being told to move over for his teammate, then telling his race engineer “when he's closer” and “I'll tell you when we can swap,” well — you get a much different impression of what actually happened. And it's not a particularly flattering one.

After the race, Ferrari team boss Fred Vasseur sounded irate, telling media, “This is a joke from FOM, because the first call came from Lewis - that Lewis asked us to swap. But to make the show, to create the mess around the situation, they broadcast only the second part of the question.”

On Monday, Formula 1 issued its own response that read, “There was absolutely no intention of presenting a misleading narrative regarding the Ferrari team radio. Due to other situations developing during the race the message from Lewis was not played but this was not intentional.”

It may not have been intentional, but it will have some significant consequences — and it suggests that the FOM may do well to more carefully approach its radio selection in the future.

The consequences of radio replays

Everyone at PlanetF1.com helps contribute to comment moderation, and let me tell you: It gets bleak. There are some good folks who love to come chat, and there are some real stinkers who have decided that they're going to bring thick-skulled Twitter “discourse” with them wherever they go.

There are a whole lot of people out there who actively hate Lewis Hamilton, and who will make every argument under the sun as to why he isn't a worthy World Champion. Beyond just disliking the man, these folks will mock anyone who might even say something mildly positive about Hamilton as being part of “Cult44,” and many of them are seeking for some kind of DEI-hire conspiracy to explain how a Black man could become a seven-time World Champion.

It's exhausting to read and exhausting to moderate, and naturally, those naysayers were out in full force after the Australian Grand Prix, where Hamilton and new engineer Adami struggled with miscommunication in their first race together. After China, things got even worse, both because of the selection of radio messages and because of the Ferrari disqualification.

The radio replays from China gave the Hamilton haters plenty of fodder to “prove” their point that he's selfish, rude, a diva, and any number of other ungenerous readings. He didn't want to move over for his teammate, AND he told his team when he'd swap? [Insert any number of unrepeatable pejoratives here.] These are the kind of folks who, upon reading the full radio transcript, will still find a way to justify their hatred — but it is imperative that the FOM not give them that fodder in the first place.

I understand the desire to stoke drama during a broadcast, particularly during a race that ended up being a little more run-of-the-mill than the chaotic Australian Grand Prix. I also understand that the FOM is not a journalistic organization, and that its goal is more to create an appealing commercial product than it is to present a fact-filled but ultra-dry narrative. I also understand that the FOM is probably keeping tabs on trends about the kind of stories fans like to hear, and after the resounding popularity of Drive to Survive, the FOM has probably learned that fans love drama that may not always be grounded exactly and perfectly in fact. Sometimes, the whole, 100% truth just isn't that interesting.

I'm sure folks at the FOM didn't listen to those Hamilton radio transmissions and rub their hands together, menacingly, and choose to air them with the intention of making Lewis Hamilton look bad. Considering the sheer number of radio messages they're sifting through in a weekend, I believe it's entirely possible that the “I think I should let Charles by” message slipped through the cracks because, all things considered, it's not that spicy of a message. I know I've been tasked with sorting through heaps of audio before, and sometimes I just straight-up fail to register an interesting tidbit because it will only become interesting the further I listen, and I don't have that context yet. I absolutely know I'd have heard the command to let Leclerc by and the subsequent “I'll tell you when we can swap” and said to myself, “Now this is juicy!” That's just how the human brain is wired. Sometimes, shit happens.

But this should be a sign that the FOM may want to look at its procedures and processes to ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen again, because it has consequences.

Now, I'm under no illusion that Lewis Hamilton is personally hurt by a shitpost calling him any number of names, because he has more important things to do than name search on Twitter. But I am far more concerned about the message this sends to a fanbase that already has a tendency to leap to conclusions based on a sliver of contextless information. I'm concerned that the pursuit of a spicy hook has completely usurped the desire to provide actually important information critical to understanding the race. I'm concerned about the precedent this sets, because yes, the FOM said the airing of the messages was not done in such a way as to intentionally paint Hamilton in a bad light, but there was no mention of how its approach will change in the future in response to these issues.

Taking ownership of your mistake is only one element of accountability. The other is changing your behavior so that mistake doesn't happen again.

I'm glad the airing of the messages was not done with the intention of painting a negative picture of Lewis Hamilton. But I will be watching to see if this happens again.