Angling Times vs Angler's Mail

[Alan Stubbs]

Nope. I actually told the editor of one of the magazines mentioned here recently that if any thread was started mentioning their magazine, I could pretty much name, in advance, who would slate them.

 

Just need Peter Waller to chip in now, and I'll have been 100% correct

 

 

...but at least we give reasoned criticism and, oddly enough, little criticism of our viewpoint is offered in return!

 

Come in Mr Waller...Your turn now!

[Steve Walker]

If tabloid press is your thing, then fine. It's not mine, so I don't buy either.

 

The Sun with fish. Stopped buying the AT 20 years ago for that reason.

[Anderoo]

If I had to buy one every week I'd buy the Times. Luckily I don't have to I do pick one up occasionally but it always leaves a tabloidy aftertaste.

 

Serious question though - if there was an 'intelligent' broadsheet-style angling weekly, what would the content be like? How many would buy it? Could it be profitable? How would it compete with the web?

 

Like all newspapers, the weeklies are there to make a profit and have to appeal to the mass market, which I think they do very well.

 

I also think that AN appeals to a certain demographic, and that the majority opinion expressed here is not representative of the wider market.

 

The web, and particularly forums, has replaced any desire for a weekly for me. There are a couple of good monthlies I often buy though, but they offer something totally different, and I only buy those if there's something that really grabs me.

[tincatinca]

I used to subscribe to both but have not done so for a number of years. In my opinion, angling publications in general have deteriorated since the eighties and I refuse to pay for what is essentially a load of adverts, new wonder baits and products coupled with numerous re-inventions of the wheel. Looking back at some of the older publications, the difference is quite astounding in terms of informative articles. In todays world and for those who have access to the net, I do not understand why anyone would wish to buy them. Speaking for myself, I am not a fan of todays instant everything and much prefer to work things for myself either by talking to people or working it out on the day from past experience and like everyone I often get it wrong The conditions on a river for example can change rapidly and watercraft is best learned by being there and doing it which to me is far more satisfying. This is a purely personal opinion and I fully accept that other people will have their own reasons and thoughts on the matter.

[bingo]

Yes, they can be trashy but they have some interesting news and stories too. I like buying them every now and again. I find them similar but AM is easier to read in the car

 

I noticed recently that AM had lifted a quote directly from a Fishing Magic thread user without his permission! So be careful what you say here if you use your own name. You may end up in print!

 

I find the news stories and articles more interesting and easier to understand than a lot of internet articles. Sorry, don't mean to criticise this site but I like the diagrams etc.

[gozzer]

I'm old (and lucky), enough to remember the likes of Billy Lane, Dick Walker, F J Taylor, Peter Stone and Ivan Marks, writing in the weeklies. I can't find anyone to match them for the content of their articles. Then they seemed to teach watercraft and technique, rather than each article reading like a tackle manufacturers catalogue.

Dick Walkers 'conversation' pieces, were particularly good for a newcomer. You were there with him on the bank, making each cast and seeing the water through his eyes.

You were encouraged to think for yourself, and adapt methods to suit your water. I was mainly 'match' based then, but found reading the likes of Walker, Taylor and Stone, gave me ideas that I could scale down, or 'tweak', to suit different situations in a match. I could always scale up the match methods to suit bigger fish, the basics are the same.

The articles taught you to 'walk' before trying to 'run'. Today mostly I see are articles designed to get you to buy as much 'branded' gear as you can, and go to an over stocked water and pull'em out.

 

OK, so I'm an old 'fart', but I pity some of those just starting out, they are missing out on a lot.

 

I suppose the angling weeklies, (and some of the monthlies) are just there to make money, by catering to the businesses that advertise with them, but I feel angling in general loses out.

 

John.

Edited February 4, 2008 by gozzer

[Dick Dastardly]

Some interesting comments from Tinca Tinca,Anderoio and Gozzer.They have (as they often do er unlike the weeklies I may add!) made me think a bit more abiout my reasons for disenchantment. Initially like Gozzer I put it down to the "old fart factor" but then thought thaty it was more probably down to the length of time I had been fishing (and therefore hopefully the amount of knowledge I had gained) Kind of thing.Untill Tincas post re the 80's being the start of the demise.

 

Now I reckon he was about right there and after a bit more thought also reckon this was probavbly the decade that saw the real start of "modern angling" ie the everyone carp fishing,multi rod,bivvied up style.Basicly all the weeklies have done is their job! in as much as they have just "reported" angling as it is at the time! Lets be honest (allthough I feel the tide is starting to turn a bit) how many of the people who now buy the papers would be interested in anything else other than instant/commercial type carp angling? All round articles (despite in all fairness the efforts of Wilson and Hayes) arte simply of no real interest to most of todays anglers. The days of the one species one method/style angler are sadly here and as Anderoo says they print papers to sell (or possibly more acurately to sell to many to encourage advertisment revenue!) not to purely entertain or inform in the truest sense.

 

As Anderoo says who/how many would buy an alternative style of weekly? Im at the stage where the internet and my own "grapevine" delivers any relevant (to me) news long before the weeklies can and for information I buy specialist books/magazines or best of all actually get it from the horses mouth!

 

What I do miss though is the "entertainment" (and possibly "insperational") factor of the writers of yesteryear as Gozzer mentions. The internet with sites such as AN and also its excellent members,with the diversity of varying amounts of knowledge/experience they have) though is starting to provide this missing part even more.

 

Or is it simply that when I was younger/less experienced an angler I was more receptive to what the writers of the day said? If I had grown up in todays angling climate I wouldf most likely think the weeklies were great! In fact I remember a time (back in the late 70's/early 80's that I used to moan that there wasnt enough carp pictures/articles in them! Times,trends and people change we have to accept that.

 

That however brings me to my last comment. I accept things change but what I cant accept is the poor quality of journalism/writing we now see. Surely getting facts right is a paramount importance in a "news paper"? and how often we see this not to be true. I uderstand that not all angling journalists are good anglers but they have (IMO) a moral right to make sure they dont mislead readers into thinking they are and everything they say is gospel! when a lot is far from that!!

[Andrew Boyd]

Either is fine for someone new to angling. Lot's of ideas, tips and so forth. But..

 

Having fished for over 40 years I will read a copy now and again and prefer, of the two, the AT. I used to purchase several mags, but gave up as I kept finding the same theme re-cycled over and over again. The Trout mags being the worst. Whats the betting the 'Baby Doll' is this years 'in-fly'. . . again!

[Dick Dastardly]

Either is fine for someone new to angling. Lot's of ideas, tips and so forth. But..

 

Having fished for over 40 years I will read a copy now and again and prefer, of the two, the AT. I used to purchase several mags, but gave up as I kept finding the same theme re-cycled over and over again. The Trout mags being the worst. Whats the betting the 'Baby Doll' is this years 'in-fly'. . . again!

 

Youve got me back on the "moral" thing again Andrew! Yes I know exactly what you mean! I uderstand totally and have no problem with the fact that each April the trout writers will tell us about the Baby Doll or every summer the carp boys will tell us how to make a boilly and every autumn the "how to unhook a pike" (er if only they did!!) articles etc.Makes sense and has to be done but like you say why does it have to be done as if the writer had just bleedin invented it? Creates a false

position of authority.I know of many pike killed by people practicing (all in good faith) what the weeklies expert has advised I also know of several rules/bans brought in because "so and so in the Mail/Times etc said so".

 

No sorry enough said.I dont like them,I dont buy them,I dont really need them as other sources fill their place.But great you pays your money you makes your choice.

[Anderoo]

Something Budgie touched on deserves a few more lines - accuracy. Even if my taste isn't commercial-style carp hauling, the weeklies have a duty to check facts and do their best to be accurate when it comes to reporting catches. They're getting so obviously cavalier in this respect, it's hard to give them any credibility (the best ever perch catch comes to mind as a high profile recent example).

 

They will say that they're just reporting the news. Well, anyone can do that; it's just repeating what they've been told. Maybe there's space in the market for a third option - still appealing to the mass market, but with more stringent editorial checks and less inflamatory nonsense from some of the regular columnists. But, is that what people want? (What people tell you they want when doing market research and what people will actually regularly shell out for are two very different things.)

 

Go through either of them any week, and I bet you'll find at least one photo of a fish whose claimed weight is, shall we say, very ambitious. It's tempting sometimes to send in a report with some photos of some obviously tiny fish and see what weight I can get them reported as

 

(I wouldn't ever do this, but I'm sure the results would be interesting...!)