One of the biggest problems with specialist angling magazines is that the best writers are not necessarily the best fishermen, and vice versa.
Of course, we then have the plethora of repeated photgraphs - same fish, same angler, same capture - which is only made worse when we get the same angler, same fish, but yet another repeat capture of it.
Very few angling writers put sufficient emphasis on their photographs which, to me, is a cardinal sin in this day and age of digital cameras. Compare the layout and photographic quality of say, IYCF to CAT. There's no comparison.
However, the fundamental difference between the two vehicles (and I'm lumping all speccy mags in one camp and all intstruction led ones in another) is that to create magazines of the highest quality the featured angler has to catch fish to order, normally within the working hours of the staff photographer. And then he has to do it again next month on a different water with a different species/ method/ bait/ etc. Try that for twenty years without repeating yourself...!
Angling magazines do not pay fortunes for the copy and the images they use. Indeed they pay miserably compared with most other media vehicles and this leads to a malaise among some of the contributors who do just enough work to get by.
It's invariably clear when you read the mags who is taking the 'Kings shilling' by the way that certain products are featured. Quite honestly no magazine should be publishing a picture of a grubby product bag of XXX pellets these days unless it's integral to the article - which you can argue it always is if the 'writer' is supplying advertorial copy.
I personally would love to see more balance in features and I do try to adopt those some principles into my writing. Yes I'll periodically throw in a picture where, say, a bag of bait is prominently positioned in a picture, or you can read what is written on a bag as I load a feeder, say. I will also include material items if I'm describing a technique but in many (indeed the vast majority of) cases I am not sponsored by that company, nor am I receiving any inducement to feature those products.
To suggest Angling Star is unique because it contains freelance articles is a complete misnomer. It is no different to CAT or CF except in the editing and reproduction quality which is somewhat substandard if we're being totally honest, but let's just agree to say it is 'different'.
But back to the point, much of the stuff in other magazines and newspapers is done by freelancers. Do you think Martin Bowler, Des Taylor and Matt Hayes are employed by Angling Times? How many articles are written in CAT and CF by staff writers? Then compare this with how many articles in AS are commisioned and ghosted by Allain Urrity and Alan Barnes, plus those by the editor himself?
To those who say angling blogs are the way forward, I'd agree but only to a point. A blog requires good content and few are able to supply that. Many are repetitive or are simply vehicles used to viciously attack those they choose not to like. They are often biggoted and lacking in any sense of humour or warmth. Good blogs are indeed rare, good angling blogs are like rocking horse manure.
Unfortunately they do not pay the bills and therefore they will never be more than hit-and-miss labours of love. But mentioning blogs, did anyone spot the picture of Ron Clay in my last one? If not, you can see it
here...
We have the press we have because that is what sells and makes a profit - albeit in some cases a rather small one. The reason why all these brilliant magazines disappear after only a couple of issues is that despite the rhetoric, they do not sell enough copies to attract advertisers or reach profitability.
Those we still see on our newsagent shelves are there because they achieve profitability and by virtue of that they confound this idea that they are bad and have no appeal. Believe it or not IYCF sells something like ten times the number of copies of CAT and CF and these are the two that have survived.
Linear Mode
