Free Carp Rod

[Alan Stubbs]

The question I'd like people's opinions on is this - if there was a weekly or monthly magazine that: had clear distinctions between content and adverts; had quality writing from unknown, unsponsered anglers; was not carp focussed; wasn't repetitive; wasn't sensationalised or dumbed down; changed content and focus with the seasons; was 'traditional' in its outlook; and was honest (e.g. not printing photos of fish which are clearly significantly smaller than their claimed weight) - would enough of us buy it to make it financially viable?

 

 

Luckily we have the internet and people like Elton.

 

If the quality of the writing was there, sure I'd go for it. Whether others would is a different matter entirely. I agree with you that on AN we are, indeed spoiled as there are regular contributor to the site with pedigree behind them.... Wordbender, Jim Gibbinson and Steve Burke come to mind.

 

In the weeklies what have you got? Ian Welch - a good angler, but a decent writer? Martin Bowler is an awesome angler, but his writing is too prosaic and pastoral. Simply waxing poetic about the mist rising over the fields has been done to death and guaranteed to bore me before it gets to the business part. Matt Hayes is in the same category. Being a latecomer to the sport and a real bookwoorm at heart, I devoured almost any angling writing I could lay my hands on and I am strongly of the opinion that the fare served up in the weeklies is relevant only to those who want to see their (or their or company / sponsor's) name in print who are aided and abetted by shoddy journalism and editing.

[Peter Waller]

I suppose the harsh reality is that neither AT nor AM is really interested in those of us who have been around the block. Most of us have all the rods and reels that we shall ever need, and probably more than we can ever use!

 

So, do they serve the potential rod and reel buyers well? Probably.

 

The basics of angling are unlikely to change that much thus repetition is inevitable. At best they can only suggests fine tuning of what already exists, and I suppose they do that reasonably well.

 

Within my own interests the unmentionable Nige Williams, and Mick Brown, both manage, or managed, to come up with worthwhile ideas and information. Whilst I agree with AM that they had to let Williams go, I'm not so sure that they have come up with an suitably innovative alternative.

 

There are good books out there, pretty good magazines too, so why do we need weekly mags? We don't, but we do need a good angling NEWS paper.

 

Keith Arthur, brillient. He'd be in my ideal weekly! And so would Martin Bowler.

[Dunk Fairley]

I agree Peter. Both weeklies set out to teach too much, and not report.

 

However, I think it would be hard for them to change direction, without major re-organisation in their ranks. To be fair to both, their Match reporting is pretty good (if you match fish. I don't, but I reckon it looks pretty informative anyway). But if you look at the way it's done, there is very little photography to go along with it. The rest of the paper's content, is pretty high on the photography side of things, and without doubt, getting the layout of the artwork right, is a logistical nightmare.

 

I would imagine it would be even harder, if they had to rely on (mostly) dodgy photo's taken by anglers, with write ups such as "Dunk caught a 2lb Roash, on flavoured bred, whill troting". By the time they'd sorted out all the spelling mistakes, and cobbled together a few facts out of the myriad of jumbled letters and reports, they wouldn't have enough time to get the paper out on a bi-weekly basis, let alone weekly.

 

Their only option would be "Staff" reporters, and lots of them. Enough to cover the whole country, all discilpines and on call 24hrs. It would be too flippin expensive.

 

Add to that, the advertisers (who really pay for the magazine to be produced. I would doubt if the sales alone, met 20% of the production costs), would soon back off, if there wasn't a bright shiny well known face inside the paper, who could (possibly) help them sell a few more tackle items.

 

Of course, it'd be great if we could go back to the days when angling weeklies centred on news. But then, it'd also be great if the daily papers did the same, instead of running endless features about "celebrities", or snippets of rubbish created so that they in turn could generate more "celebrities" to prattle on about.

 

I think I'm going to have to come down on the side of Elton on this one. By that I mean that I think AM are making a genuine offer, to encourage higher subscription numbers. This in turn should impress the advertisers, who in turn will (may) pay more money. The money they pay could then be used to improve the content of the paper. Or at least that's the way it should work........

[Alan Stubbs]

I suppose the harsh reality is that neither AT nor AM is really interested in those of us who have been around the block. Most of us have all the rods and reels that we shall ever need, and probably more than we can ever use!

 

So, do they serve the potential rod and reel buyers well? Probably.

 

The basics of angling are unlikely to change that much thus repetition is inevitable. At best they can only suggests fine tuning of what already exists, and I suppose they do that reasonably well.

 

Within my own interests the unmentionable Nige Williams, and Mick Brown, both manage, or managed, to come up with worthwhile ideas and information. Whilst I agree with AM that they had to let Williams go, I'm not so sure that they have come up with an suitably innovative alternative.

 

There are good books out there, pretty good magazines too, so why do we need weekly mags? We don't, but we do need a good angling NEWS paper.

 

Keith Arthur, brillient. He'd be in my ideal weekly! And so would Martin Bowler.

 

 

Peter, I'd really love to agree with every word you say. Most of it I do go along with.

 

I'm not a pike angler and the only pike I've ever caught have been surprises and all of whom seem to answer to the name of Jack. Are they prehensile carp, perhaps?

 

I whole-heartedly concur about Nige Williams, and his replacement is not inspirational to say the least. I've met Mick Brown twice, more than a year apart and he remembered who I was and where we first met - he comes across as truly passionate about his sport and an interesting and nice man as well. As a writer, I can't comment, but if he can limit the number of times he puts 'Fox' or 'Dynamite' into an article, I'd gladly try it!

 

I understand why you choose Keith Arthur, but listening to Fisherman's Blues, he has that 'shock-jock' irritation of agreeing with diametrically oppposed views and I've read his columns enough in the past to recall him contradicting himself in consecutive weeks. On the other hand, his column in Coarse Fisherman talking about his match angling days was rivetting stuff when I used to read it. On which subject, Coarse Fisherman is head and shoulders above any other angling journal I've come across.

 

Where I most strongly disagree with what you say about the weeklies is that all the while the AM dispatch the likes of Gary Newman to review a tackle manufacturer's new range as an article and asks employees of that company for their opinions of the product under the guise of journalism (more likely membership of the Institute of Practitioners of Advertising!) it removes any claim to being objective - what employee is going to highlight any pitfalls from one of their own products? Whilst not so naked in its lack of objectivity, the whole feel of the AT is tacky and doesn't encourage me to want to buy it. Things like telling me 20 things you MUST do this week.... I have a partner to tell me that, I don't need to pay a cover price as well!

 

Sincerely, though Peter, I wish you and yours - indeed everyone who sees this a very happy new year.

 

Alan

Edited December 31, 2008 by Alan Stubbs

[1superken]

Dunk not sure anyone posting in this thread needs an explanation of how journalism works but thanks anyway . Could you please also give us your opinion on when your opinion of more money will improve the quality of the paper is going to come to fruition ?

[Dunk Fairley]

I give up!

Bye bye everyone.

[Alan Stubbs]

I give up!

Bye bye everyone.

Hi Dunk, in case you read this…

 

I was undoubtedly one of those to who Elton was referring in his opening post.

 

In an open forum all sides of a discussion deserve to be heard. Just because someone has said something before, doesn’t mean reiteration is invalid or irrelevant when the topic is raised again by someone else. In suggesting it was likely to happen, Elton indirectly invited a contrary expression of opinion.

 

The fact remains that your well-made explanation of the economics of the publishing industry were pretty well spot on and the first attempt I’ve come across of someone trying to justify the ‘dumbing down’ which seemed to coincide with the regime of the two current editors of the weeklies. I’d welcome the input of the editors to make their case. When challenged on anything contentious it’s unlikely to elicit a reply from them at the magazine’s offices. No doubt due to pressure of work.

 

Based upon what Elton intimated, at least one of the weeklies’ editors reads these forums, no doubt in the interests of research. Thus, a regular voicing of the criticisms should actually help – after all, they are certainly constructive, polite and in the main, respectful.

[DavyR]

Are they prehensile carp, perhaps?

 

1. Adapted for grasping especially by wrapping around an object; "a monkey's prehensile tail"

 

2. Having a keen intellect; "poets--those gifted strangely prehensile men"- A.T.Quiller-Couch

 

3. Avaricious: immoderately desirous of acquiring e.g. wealth; "they are avaricious and will do anything for money"; "casting covetous eyes on his neighbor's fields"; "a grasping old miser"; "grasping commercialism"; "greedy for money and power"; "grew richer and greedier"; "prehensile employers ...

 

www.wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

Having been aware only of the first of these three definitions of "prehensile", I was intrigued to know why Alan might imagine pike swinging from trees by their tails. My inquisitive nature now wishes to know which of the two alternative meanings Alan really had in mind - are pike more intelligent than carp? Are they even greedier? Will Gozzer be first in with a reply?

[Alan Stubbs]

1. Adapted for grasping especially by wrapping around an object; "a monkey's prehensile tail"

 

2. Having a keen intellect; "poets--those gifted strangely prehensile men"- A.T.Quiller-Couch

 

3. Avaricious: immoderately desirous of acquiring e.g. wealth; "they are avaricious and will do anything for money"; "casting covetous eyes on his neighbor's fields"; "a grasping old miser"; "grasping commercialism"; "greedy for money and power"; "grew richer and greedier"; "prehensile employers ...

 

www.wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

Having been aware only of the first of these three definitions of "prehensile", I was intrigued to know why Alan might imagine pike swinging from trees by their tails. My inquisitive nature now wishes to know which of the two alternative meanings Alan really had in mind - are pike more intelligent than carp? Are they even greedier? Will Gozzer be first in with a reply?

 

 

I meant prehensile in the medical sense (according to my old biology teacher) - as in parts rendered useless by evolution, the human appendix for example. You could almost call it a 'throwback'!

 

Now I know Peter is not remotely interested in carp, so the idea of naming a pike is to me quite funny and as he feels pike fishing is more technical than carp angling, the irony amused me.

 

Bernadette when she first went fishing had heard people naming various fish (and kept hearing about Jack Pike), including a mullet made famous by Leon Roskilly , called 'Manky Jim' after Jim Gibbinson (allegedly)! So it seemed an obvious question for her to ask... how do you know which one is 'Jack'?

Edited January 2, 2009 by Alan Stubbs

[DavyR]

I meant prehensile in the medical sense (according to my old biology teacher) - as in parts rendered useless by evolution, the human appendix for example.

 

Ah. In that case, I think the word is "vestigial".