fishing mags

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

I perfer Deanos DVD's, you should see the fat tractor birds, the Russian is bigger than Deanos, and the size of her ***s

AT or AM, None of them for me

 

[Tony Rocca]

Some good old articles in AT today, BB, Walker, Yates, etc

Took me twice as long as usual to flick through it in ASDA.

 

[honslow]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz................Mail!!!!!!!!!!

Page6 Fred.

 

[steve taylor]

Page6 Fred ?

 

[yoggy]

Dont worry Greg,these lot just dont appreciate quality mate /forum/smilies/wink_smiley.gif

 

[Fred Bonney]

Page 6,page 6?

Relegated into the area of doubtful fish!/forum/smilies/wink_smiley.gif

 

[Steve Holland]

I read both, prefer AT and think the snide comments that are always in AM about AT are rather childish. Oh and twice I've had letters printed in AM but did I recieve the free line on offer at the time? NO I BLOODY DIDN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:-{

 

[honslow]

Doubtful fish? /forum/smilies/wink_smiley.gif

 

[Gary Knowles]

/forum/smilies/sleepy_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/sleepy_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/sleepy_smiley.gif/forum/smilies/sleepy_smiley.gif

 

[mike Gibson]

None of 'em. Both are now glorified tackle catalogues (and why pay good money for a catalogue?). Their so-called articles' are justquasi marketing promotions for bits of kit, proprietary baits or commercial fisheries.As for thetackle reviews, its journalists are given a freebie by themanufacturers, sentout on a expenses paid jolly to a commercial fishery, and their objectivity goes out of thewindow.

 

[honslow]

Thanks forthat Mike! Enlightening. And to think I've workedfor ATfor three-and-a-half years and notweighed myself in withall those freebies and expenses-paid jollies.

I must be really gormless!!!!

 

[Fred Bonney]

As usual thoughGreg,we do all the work, and the bosses take the goodies!/forum/smilies/sarcastic_smiley.gif

 

[mike Gibson]

If, whenreviewing a commercialfishery fortheir employer, AT and AM journalistsreally do pay for the day ticket, the bait, petrol etc out of their own pockets,then I'll gladly eat my words!

 

[The Monk]

if its your job as a journalist you should get these paid on expenses surely

 

[honslow]

Yes, that would be how it works Monk. However, we tend to do most of the fishery info over the phone. Doesn't make financialsense to send a full time staff member out for a day to review one, or maybe two,fisheries.

We've just re-launched our where To Fish section. But we are dependent on what info we can get over the phone and on what photos we can source sat behind a desk.

Mike you seem to think that a job reviewing tackle is just one big jolly. Actually, while you get expenses paid, you HAVE TO CATCH and you HAVE TO GET PHOTOS. You're not necessarily having a great day's fishing. Then you have to go back to the office, get the gear photographed inthe studio and write some bloody good copy or you'll get sacked/replaced/moved on.

So journalism isn't all a walk-in-the-park-jolly. Especially when you get paid diddy squat at the end of the month! Yes, we enjoy the subject and some get a few perks. But if I wanted money I'd do something else!

As for being glorified tackle catalogues I'm not even going to bother going there!

 

[Jack Pike 3]

Having read both Xmas editions in Tescos I happily present Anglers Mail the award for being the least waste of money of the two!

Take the mega sized pictures and adverts out of AT and it works out about 40p per page of largely biased editorial/forum/smilies/wink_smiley.gif.

Are there such things as wholly creditable tackle tests? Answer in no more thn two letters.

 

[Paul (Brummie) Williams]

We can't keep upsetting our Greg like this! AM.

 

[coelacanth]

I buy both each week without fail, when work prevents me getting out they allow me to fish vicariously through the articles. If I had to drop one, it would be AT, albeit reluctantly. Although writers like Martin Bowler and Dean Macey make it worth reading every week, AT is the only one of the two where I've actually turned it upside down on the shop counter because of a front-page headline I didn't want people to see (I actually considered buying the lot to get them off the shelves, which could, I suppose,have been an effective if short-term marketing ploy). AT could also do with a scientificadvisor to prevent their regular columnists making really obvious howlers (I know EMAP already haswriters and editorsin their stable who could do this, and IYCF manages it without any great problems). The tackle reviews are useful to me (I'm aware enough to be able to filer out anything too obvious), andMark Sawyer's reviews have hadme thinking about buying tackle I wouldn't normally consider.

I do find the fact that Greg comes on here and is willing to take some flak encouraging.

AM is generally more careful about whatis written, there does appear to be a slight "chip on shoulder" towards AT, but my main gripe is with some of the images they publish of their contributors holding fish in a "Vulcan death grip" beneath the pectoral fins. I don't know whether this is an attempt to make the fish look fuller in the belly, but therearedelicate skeletal structures there, not to mention that the heart of a fish is situated just above that area.

Pete

 

[Paul (Brummie) Williams]

I would never have know the Herefordshire Wye begins it's life in Derbyshire if not for AT! howlers, what howlers /forum/smilies/wink_smiley.gif

 

[Craig Calthorpe]

I'm a newbie to this forum and like to read the Anglers mail, although occasionally I will have a browse at the times. I just think that the AM is smaller and set out better.

Greg, What do you mean about page 6 and doubtful fish?? Are you suggesting that the fish aren't the size reported??

Regards

Craig