GrahamM
Managing Editor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 1999
- Messages
- 9,773
- Reaction score
- 1
I didn?t really want to get dragged into this debate as I dismissed Bob?s remarks in CF as no more than a petulant ?if you call me names I?ll call you even badder names? retaliation.
My first question to Kevin is: Don?t you think you may be attaching a little too much importance to the opinion of one man?
He?s an angler who is entitled to an opinion like the rest of us, but you seem to be attaching far more weight to what he has to say than to what anyone else has to say. Especially since I would guess the majority of us would disagree with much of his criticism of us. In fact, in many respects what he wrote isn?t true, or isn?t a complete truth. Anyway, for what it?s worth, here?s my view, and my view is backed by more experience than most of both print and internet angling writing. My view is not a one-sided, insular view.
Bob said it was the majority of forum posters who jump at every opportunity to knock angling print media. That is simply not true and needs no further comment.
The remark that websites are ?insular?, read only by those who are already converted, doesn?t make a lot of sense. Converted to what? The internet? Don?t the vast majority of young to late middle-aged people use the internet these days? Aren?t they the ones who have opened their world beyond the printed page to take in what the online world has to offer as well? How can that be ?insular?: inward looking, blinkered, narrow-minded? I would say just the opposite, that those who haven?t yet been ?converted? are the insular group.
?Leave an angling magazine on your desk at work and the chances are a non-angler will flick through it sooner or later. Colleagues tend to show an interest in what you get up to. Some are intrigued enough to give angling a go. That is something that internet sites can never replicate.? Bob wrote.
Again, the latter remark just isn?t true. Doesn?t the same thing apply to an angler?s computer screen in an office? Isn?t it more likely that a fishing website page will be seen on an office computer monitor and is at least equally as likely to attract the attention of a colleague? In an office environment, which is most likely to be on view, a magazine or a computer monitor?
??isn?t it strange that these posters, who are so keen to decry the print medium, are just gagging to be part of it??
?These posters?? Apart from Kevin, who else on this website is ?gagging to be part of? the angling print media. ?These? posters reads like it?s dozens who are gagging to write for the angling press. So who are they?
?Publishing on the internet is easy. It?s playing at it. Your peers will all slap you on the back and say, ?Well done!??
Tell that to all those who have had a polite email from me when their work was rejected. An email that also had a few words of advice and encouragement.
But let?s be fair, it is definitely easier to get published on the internet. But not because, as is the inference, that websites will publish crap. Not at all, it?s easier because websites don?t have any page restrictions and are quite happy to publish articles that will cater for a minority interest. The page cost of a website is negligible compared to the page cost of a magazine.
To say in one breath that anyone wishing to break into writing should contribute to the web, and then in the next breath say that angling website writing is ?playing at it? is both contradictory and offensive.
The website writer?s peers say ?well done!? because they want to offer encouragement and say thank you for the effort they?ve made. Time and effort that was given for no payment whatsoever. To find fault with that is beyond my comprehension.
My first question to Kevin is: Don?t you think you may be attaching a little too much importance to the opinion of one man?
He?s an angler who is entitled to an opinion like the rest of us, but you seem to be attaching far more weight to what he has to say than to what anyone else has to say. Especially since I would guess the majority of us would disagree with much of his criticism of us. In fact, in many respects what he wrote isn?t true, or isn?t a complete truth. Anyway, for what it?s worth, here?s my view, and my view is backed by more experience than most of both print and internet angling writing. My view is not a one-sided, insular view.
Bob said it was the majority of forum posters who jump at every opportunity to knock angling print media. That is simply not true and needs no further comment.
The remark that websites are ?insular?, read only by those who are already converted, doesn?t make a lot of sense. Converted to what? The internet? Don?t the vast majority of young to late middle-aged people use the internet these days? Aren?t they the ones who have opened their world beyond the printed page to take in what the online world has to offer as well? How can that be ?insular?: inward looking, blinkered, narrow-minded? I would say just the opposite, that those who haven?t yet been ?converted? are the insular group.
?Leave an angling magazine on your desk at work and the chances are a non-angler will flick through it sooner or later. Colleagues tend to show an interest in what you get up to. Some are intrigued enough to give angling a go. That is something that internet sites can never replicate.? Bob wrote.
Again, the latter remark just isn?t true. Doesn?t the same thing apply to an angler?s computer screen in an office? Isn?t it more likely that a fishing website page will be seen on an office computer monitor and is at least equally as likely to attract the attention of a colleague? In an office environment, which is most likely to be on view, a magazine or a computer monitor?
??isn?t it strange that these posters, who are so keen to decry the print medium, are just gagging to be part of it??
?These posters?? Apart from Kevin, who else on this website is ?gagging to be part of? the angling print media. ?These? posters reads like it?s dozens who are gagging to write for the angling press. So who are they?
?Publishing on the internet is easy. It?s playing at it. Your peers will all slap you on the back and say, ?Well done!??
Tell that to all those who have had a polite email from me when their work was rejected. An email that also had a few words of advice and encouragement.
But let?s be fair, it is definitely easier to get published on the internet. But not because, as is the inference, that websites will publish crap. Not at all, it?s easier because websites don?t have any page restrictions and are quite happy to publish articles that will cater for a minority interest. The page cost of a website is negligible compared to the page cost of a magazine.
To say in one breath that anyone wishing to break into writing should contribute to the web, and then in the next breath say that angling website writing is ?playing at it? is both contradictory and offensive.
The website writer?s peers say ?well done!? because they want to offer encouragement and say thank you for the effort they?ve made. Time and effort that was given for no payment whatsoever. To find fault with that is beyond my comprehension.
