If that's the case, there in rests a big problem.īack in the 60's 70's and such an editor would receive a slushpile of papers seeking to be published. Not naming names of mags here, but I've seen beautiful articles advertised across the magazine cover only to buy the mag, take it home read it and realize, an amateur with an excellent website had far more content and observing innovation than the article author! I wondered if the magazine published the lesser observers work simply because that individual SUBMITTED it. We need leaders in their fields, not casual intermediates or advanced beginners. ST under the new Editor in Chief has a veritable blueprint for success in this issue. We NEED LEADERS in the field who inspire even the seasoned experts. OMeara has done this in his books (Id like to see it in ASTRONOMY thank you) Tony and Daphne Hallie as well and so on. Banich's contributions to S&T (and this months was perfect!) recalls the classic S&T where a person illuminates a new way forward in approach, technique and representation. But a magazine that has practical hands-on that soon becomes remedial for todays seasoned amateurs after a couple years confines itself to that group of budding observers. The beginner content is fine in moderation. What would you suggest in either magazine thatd make it more appealing to you? What would you like to see that might not be there now?ġ. Theres no doubt the age of the internet has impacted magazine readership in general, but I single out the Big Two in this post.
0 kommentar(er)
