Jon Noble’s journey through the industry reads like a roadmap of media evolution itself. Starting with Timothy Collings’ sports news agency that he began working for during his University holidays from 1992, he covered Formula One alongside football and rugby for major newspapers. In 2000, he joined Autosport, before moving to Autosport.com in 2004, at a time when websites were “small side projects” that couldn’t even secure FIA press accreditation. In 2015, he moved to Motorsport.com, and this year, he contributes to The Race. At the end of last year, Jon launched his freelance career, continuing to work from F1 paddocks around the world.
“I’ve done lots,” he says simply, but behind that understatement lies a front-row seat to journalism’s digital revolution.
The speed of information
For Jon, the most striking change over the last thirty years has been the collapse of traditional news cycles. “At the time, Autosport was published on a Thursday, and the stories held until the following Thursday. People would rarely be aware that something had happened for several days,” he recalls. “Now everything’s instant. Someone says something, and it’s on social media five seconds later, picked up by a website 10 seconds later.”
Where once accuracy was built into the system through slower publication schedules, today’s journalists face constant pressure to balance speed with truth. “The information moves much faster these days, which makes it harder to check the facts and stay accurate while keeping up with the news cycle,” he explains. “There’s a flood of information, and wrong elements can get stuck in there quickly.”
Jon’s approach hasn’t changed, though. He still checks, double-checks, and triple-checks when possible. “Sometimes, if facts are straightforward, like a press release from a trusted source, then speed can take over. But if something needs verifying, it is better to be 30 minutes or an hour late and be correct than to be first with a wrong story.”
Mattia Binotto with Jon Noble (right) © XPB
The human element
For Jon, journalism is still built on human contact: calling press officers, speaking directly with the people involved, like drivers, team bosses, and other personnel, and cross-checking with multiple sources. “If documents have been circulated among teams, you’ll find one of those teams to verify that it’s correct. If it’s about something that happened in a meeting, you’ll find other people who were there to corroborate,” Jon says. “And if two people are telling you the same story, you are usually on solid ground.”
Print’s value remains
While acknowledging that print’s primary role has shifted, it retains unique value. “Print’s relevance has changed. When I started, it was your number one route to information. Today’s value of print is more in the tactile element, as many sponsors and CEOs still like seeing things in print and holding it in their hands.”
When asked about the future of print journalism, Jon strikes a pragmatic note: “Print’s got a future, just in a different way to10 or 15 years ago. In a world where people can read 100 stories on F1 on their phones each day, a print product has to stand out. It has to be something that people want to hold in their hands, that looks and feels beautiful, and that delivers something they can’t find scrolling on their phone.”
The credibility challenge
Countering false information is now the industry’s biggest challenge, Jon argues. Social media has democratized publishing, but not necessarily improved quality. “I look on social media and find stories about major news events that are completely false, published by news sites or individuals that have not checked the facts, and are happy to run fake stories just for engagement. This is hard to counter.”
His solution? Don’t fight every false story because you will end up constantly chasing your tail. “Keep doing what you’re doing as a journalist. Continue to report the truth, remain reliable, and be trustworthy. You’ll rise through it.”
More importantly, print offers something that digital cannot: permanence. “Words in print can’t be changed 10 seconds later. There’s a degree of trust in them. Online news can be deleted or modified, but print has this element of trust. This also extends to video: you can’t go back and change what you said.”
Standing out in a crowded room
The rise in Formula One’s popularity has brought both chances and hurdles. Where once only three or four websites dominated F1 coverage, now 10 to 15 sites compete alongside numerous influencers and social media personalities. “There’s a wealth of information, millions of words written daily about Formula One,” says Jon. “But if you’re reliable and fair, you can stand out from the rest.” One avenue is offering unique value: “Step back from producing 30 stories a day about anything anyone says. Analyze it. What does it actually mean?”
This approach mirrors traditional magazine journalism, adapted for digital platforms. “There’s the story behind the story that readers still value now. Delivering insight, expertise, experience, and information from contacts that other people can’t get,” he says.
Fernando Alonso with Jon Noble (right)
The Liberty Media era
While acknowledging Formula One’s “Americanization” under Liberty Media, Jon believes the changes have been more practical than philosophical for journalists. “The concerts at the tracks don’t really have an impact on us. What’s changed is moving race timetables back into the evenings. With races now starting at 3 p.m. or later, everything is pushed back: deadlines, debriefs, dinner.”
However, Liberty’s approach has also created new opportunities. “The sport’s more open now than toward the end of the Ecclestone era, where social media was a complete no-no. Now we can do mini-paddock videos, for example, which are really popular with our audience.”
The Drive to Survive effect
The Netflix effect has brought new audiences to Formula One, particularly younger fans who might initially be drawn to personalities rather than pure racing. Rather than viewing this as a threat, Jon sees it as an opportunity. “You’re only a new fan for one race or two. After that, you’re in it, and you want more information.”
This diversity of audience is healthy for the sport, he argues. “You need people who want to read about front wings and engine developments, as well as those interested in driver contracts and the silly season, and those interested in where a driver goes on holiday. It’s much better than us writing stories with no audience out there that cares.”
AI is a tool, not a threat
Unlike some journalists who fear artificial intelligence, Jon views it as a valuable tool rather. “AI is useful in harnessing data, examining documents, and clearing up processes. Transcription used to be one of the most tedious jobs for a journalist, requiring them to rewind tape machines for hours. Now, most people use AI systems to do rough transcripts, which you can tidy up much quicker.”
But the human element remains irreplaceable. “One-on-one contact with sources is absolutely critical. A human knows much better what a story is, when you’re being lied to, or when people are bending the truth.”
The future of Formula One journalism
Despite the challenges, Jon remains optimistic about the role of journalism in Formula One. The sport’s popularity has created more work and opportunities, even if it’s made the job more demanding.
“The expansion of content is the main thing that’s changed. I don’t know if we’ll end up with 200 sites that all copy each other or if they’ll all whittle down to a handful that do their own thing. But the shift to video content is clear. Anything less than 200,000 views is considered subpar for a YouTube video. I did a video for The Race’s YouTube channel at the start of the year that got two and a half million views. These are numbers you would rarely get with a written piece.”
The medium may be evolving, but the fundamental mission remains constant: providing insight, context, and truth in an increasingly noisy world. For journalists willing to adapt while holding onto their core values, Formula One’s digital future offers both challenges and opportunities in equal measure.
