Inside a Formula 1 scoop: How to get — and publish — new information

Plus: all the hoops you have to jump through to get a story published

As a Formula 1 journalist, one of the most rewarding things you can do is break news. Because hundreds of people work for, in, or around the sport, novel information is at a premium, and the result is that many aspiring motorsport journos or smaller publications end up regurgitating the same content, stories, and quotes that a small selection of well-vetted journalists have shared. But everyone wants to be the one to break the news.

It's a much more difficult than it sounds, because the tight-knit Formula 1 universe protects itself and its interests. “Breaking” news isn't just a matter of receiving and publishing a verified scoop; it's also about navigating the knotty quagmire of relationships that comprise the sport. You might have incontrovertible evidence that what you are about to publish is fact — but it is almost guaranteed that, in the process of doing your due diligence, you will be encouraged (read: heavily advised, or else) to couch your scoop in more comfortable terms. Terms that will suck the punch right out of your story.

Having been in this industry for a while, I want to share a few stories from my own career to illustrate what I mean. That includes some examples pulled from the research for Racing with Rich Energy, which I wrote alongside Alanis King, as well as other examples of more contemporary news-y moments.

First: Let's talk about F1 journalism

Before we really dig in, I want to sketch a rough picture of what the F1 journalism world is like, and how journalists are expected to conduct themselves.

It's no secret that F1 plays its cards close to its chest. Back when Bernie Ecclestone gained control of its commercial rights, Formula 1 soon narrowed its scope of acceptable reporting conduct to prioritize favorable coverage — and that coverage was heavily policed. Make one wrong move, and you'd turn up to the track one day to find that your media pass was being denied at the paddock scanner.

When Liberty Media bought Formula One Management, I think a lot of people thought things would change, and they have — but it's far from a 180-degree pivot. There's still an expectation that published news, quotes, stories, and opinions will feature some kind of positive spin.

At worst, choosing not to follow these unwritten rules means that you're putting your actual ability to cover the sport in jeopardy: i.e., your credential requests will not be accepted, or your hard card will no longer work at the gate. At best, it means you'll never be invited to crack into F1's “inner circle” — or, you won't gain access to a team's WhatsApp group where it shares critical information, you won't be invited to press conferences, your requests for interviews will be denied, and your general ability to do your job in a compelling way will falter. You can still show up to races and attend mandatory pressers, but maybe you won't be handed a microphone to ask questions.

With that in mind: Let's dig deeper into some scoops from my own career.

Racing with Rich Energy: An exercise in non-cooperation

After several years of hard work, Alanis King and I published our book Racing with Rich Energy: How a Rogue Sponsor Took Formula 1 For a Ride in 2022.

Both Alanis and I had been writing about F1 for several years by the time we started working on the book — which, if you aren't familiar, is a deep dive into Haas’ wacky former title partner, Rich Energy (an energy drink company that purported it could be bigger than Red Bull).

We knew, then, that we'd face a lot of challenges trying to report on this story, particularly if we wanted anything at all from any F1 teams or drivers. We also knew we had a good enough story to tell no matter what.

Haas straight-up declined to participate. We reached out to the team several times during the writing process, hoping for clarity on specific details and seeking comment on some of the more philosophical concerns that popped up during the writing process. Before we sent the final draft off to our publisher, we reached out one additional time with a list of all the questions we asked, and were again told Haas had nothing to say. (We included those questions in an appendix.)

The lack of participation wasn't a concern, since we were expecting it. But even today, if PlanetF1.com wants an interesting interview from Haas, we're far more likely to get it by having someone who is Not Me request it.

I'd like to think that the folks at Haas respected that we were tedious in our fact checking, vetting, and requests for comment, but I think that respect has translated less into “we can trust these writers to produce quality, accurate work” and more into “don't work with these people again because they don’t toe the line.”

While I'm still incredibly proud of the work Alanis and I did, our reviews have largely centered on the missing pieces: Namely, quotes from folks at Haas, and a follow-up interview with William Storey of Rich Energy. I agree with that sentiment 100%. I also don't think enough people understand the nuance of the F1 media industry, and the fact that the conversations we did have were almost miraculous.

We spoke to Haas employees and F1 journalists. We tracked down as many people around F1 as possible, to help create a definitive narrative that could allow readers to imagine the chaos of what went down at Haas. We also made our future lives more difficult.

The subject matter also meant that, when it came time to promote the book, anyone with any F1 ties adamantly refused to accept a review copy.

“Honda is struggling”

At this year's Rolex 24, I had a chance to join a round-table with Koji Watanabe, president of Honda Racing Corporation. HRC is the company that, as the name implies, oversees all of Honda's motorsport operations, from Acura in IMSA to Honda's incoming Formula 1 power units.

In response to a question about Honda’s progress on its 2026 F1 power unit, Watanabe said, “We are struggling. Now we are trying our best to show the result next year. Everything is new. The motor is a new 355-kW, very compact one we need. Also the lightweight battery, it’s not so easy to develop. And also the small engine with the big power. Everything is very difficult, but we try our best.”

That's a pretty big deal! The guy who oversees the Honda PU development is saying that, actually, things have been difficult!

When I pitched the story, that was the focus: That Honda has admitted that development is challenging. And the immediate response from everyone I work with was, “Uh-oh. Aston Martin's not going to like that.”

In order to show that I am a team player, I reached out to Aston's PR team with the quotes. In the meantime, I drafted the article. When Aston responded, it was with a coded message that, on first glance, made me think the angle of my piece was solid; conferring with my team, though, they said that what Aston actually meant was that, if I wanted to stay in their good graces, I should soften the article. Rather than saying Honda is finding development challenging, I was supposed to imply that a Honda boss had simply offered an update, and that the update effectively amounted to, “It's been tough — but here are all the reasons why it might be tough for everyone.’

In the following days, other journalists used my story as a jumping-off point from which to ask questions of other folks in the F1 sphere, including Adrian Newey and Christian Horner. Their response? English isn't Koji Watanabe's first language, so the journalist who reported the original story made something out of nothing.

The thing is, there were multiple Honda execs and PR reps in the suite during that round-table. In off-the-record chats throughout the weekend, I was able to confirm that, yes, development has been challenging, and that Watanabe wasn't stymied by a language barrier in communicating those challenges. Naturally, though, Honda folks didn't want to elaborate on them, and Aston didn't want me to talk about them at all, so what could have been an interesting story ended up being a damp and frankly useless squib that more “respected” journalists confined to the F1 sphere used to remain in the good graces of guys like Horner and Newey.

Am I annoyed? Yes, absolutely. I'd love to do some actual good reporting, but the F1 sphere hasn't welcomed me in just yet, and the F1 sphere also doesn't really value any information gleaned outside of an F1 weekend.

Mainly, though, my goal here is to demystify some of what makes F1 journalism such an absurd industry — one where the raw clay of a scoop isn't molded by the person who gleaned the information, but by the teams and personnel who want you to communicate something specific about that information.

I also hope it helps clarify some of the frustrations that fans feel about F1 reporting. I see a lot of people wondering why certain things are angled in a certain why, or why some publications are talking about a scoop and others aren't.