GrahamM
Managing Editor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 1999
- Messages
- 9,773
- Reaction score
- 1
Perhaps only a minor point in the grand scheme of things, but the following quote from the above press release says volumes about the general attitude towards angling websites:
"Angling newspapers and magazines have all been very supportive of the plans, which have also been reported in national newspapers."
Great, that's good news for those of us who support the initiative.
But it's what remains unsaid that concerns me, and begs two questions.
1. Are they saying that angling websites have not been supportive of the plans?
2. Or do they consider what we think as insignificant and can be ignored?
Two thoughts spring to mind: when they say that angling newspapers and magazines have been very supportive, what they really mean is that the publisher/editorial staff have been very supportive. I don't think for one second that the readership have been consulted before the publication published any supporting editorial.
Now, angling websites (and I don't mean just FishingMagic) have also generally come out in support of the initiative. But this support, apart from a minority of dissenting voices, has come from anglers - not me, or any other website editor, but from you, the people who have voiced their opinions on the forum andwho will be most affected by a unified body.
And yet umpteen thousands of us who voice our opinions on angling websites have been totally ignored.
Doesn't it matter what we think? Don't they know that print readership is falling as rapidly as website readership is growing?
Of course I realise that the editors of print media still have lots of influence on the angling public, but surely that's not a reason to ignore you, the anglers whose money they will want when you consider joining the new body.
"Angling newspapers and magazines have all been very supportive of the plans, which have also been reported in national newspapers."
Great, that's good news for those of us who support the initiative.
But it's what remains unsaid that concerns me, and begs two questions.
1. Are they saying that angling websites have not been supportive of the plans?
2. Or do they consider what we think as insignificant and can be ignored?
Two thoughts spring to mind: when they say that angling newspapers and magazines have been very supportive, what they really mean is that the publisher/editorial staff have been very supportive. I don't think for one second that the readership have been consulted before the publication published any supporting editorial.
Now, angling websites (and I don't mean just FishingMagic) have also generally come out in support of the initiative. But this support, apart from a minority of dissenting voices, has come from anglers - not me, or any other website editor, but from you, the people who have voiced their opinions on the forum andwho will be most affected by a unified body.
And yet umpteen thousands of us who voice our opinions on angling websites have been totally ignored.
Doesn't it matter what we think? Don't they know that print readership is falling as rapidly as website readership is growing?
Of course I realise that the editors of print media still have lots of influence on the angling public, but surely that's not a reason to ignore you, the anglers whose money they will want when you consider joining the new body.