Shooters Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I grew up on the trinity, outdoor life, field and stream and sports afield. Just recently I went online to F&S and it appears the liberals nuts have taken over their blog. What has happened to these once venerable sources of information for hunters and outdoorsmen?
 

·
Beartooth Regular
Joined
·
598 Posts
I haven't checked lately but the problem is usually with the corporate ownership. Sports Afield is a bit thin in content but their world-wide stories are good. No fishing. No rabbit hunting or birds, except as peripherals to the main big game story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
The biggest joke is thier dble issue. Only thing dble is the ads. Didn't renew Outdoor Life and sure won't do Sports Afield either. Seems they are really concerned with the size of my winkie than any real stories. Any stuff the feature is sure not for the average workin Joe.. Sad part the NRA rags are no better.......... Happy New Year all
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
293 Posts
The whole print media business is in trouble. Advertising revenue is down, and more of us get our info and entertainment elsewhere (like here).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
488 Posts
Field & Stream has been taken over by the lefties. I cancelled my subscription when they signed on to the "global warming" lie.

I agree with the other posted that indicated that print media is dying. Technology is only part of the reason though; lack of content is the main reason. Funny how the marketplace take care of these things, isn't it?

Want a prediction? BIG GOVERNMENT will "bail out" some areas of print media during 2010.

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,661 Posts
“I agree with the other posted that indicated that print media is dying. Technology is only part of the reason though; lack of content is the main reason.”

Right on the money. Take a look at a late ‘50’s Guns & Ammo or early ‘60’s Shooting Times and compare them with today.

Take a look at the Shooters Bible from the 19040’s, ‘50’s and ‘60’s and compare it to today’s sad example. How can a teenager of today wear out the current example?

The same can be said for Gun Digest. There are a very few good articles, most on very colorful glossy pages. I would rather have the poor quality black and white with more content.
The Big Anniversary Issue is a good example of how sad the story has become. Today you don’t wear the pages out flipping them between the various manufacturers comparing weight and stock dimensions.

The American Rifleman is a pathetic example of failure to recognize the need to educate young people in the shooting sports through useful articles. We need to be informed about our Government and the very real threat to take our rights, but we also need to fire the imagination of young people. The pictures are nice but I would rather have story. I believe the lack of participation by the membership is the reason for the failure. Go back to the 1930’s, ‘40’s and ‘50’s and see how the membership participated in the magazine by submitting articles and writing to the Dope Bag. The membership felt like they were a part of the NRA. Not so today.
 

·
The Troll Whisperer (Moderator)
Joined
·
24,136 Posts
Picked up a copy of Field and Stream at the airport for something to read on the plane while flying from Phoenix to Chicago, a 3 hour flight. Reading and looking intently at every page, the magazine lasted about 45 minutes. Advertising made up at least 1/2 of the pages. Very disappointing. Haven't bought this type of magazine in years and have no desire to spend money on them in the future. Suscribe to the Wolfe publications and receive copies of the NRA and NAHC because of memberships. These serve my needs for printed material anymore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,931 Posts
I dropped Field and Stream, along with Out Door Life, some time back in the early 60s.
Picked up Shooting Times, G and A, Gun World, Guns, American Hand Gunner instead. Dropped them after Skeeter Skelton and the rest of the old timers died off.
Now I'm limited to Handloader and Rifle.

Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
293 Posts
As to lack of content...I agree it's kinda anemic. I wonder why they don't go ahead and reprint some of the best of the old timers?

I would rather re-read an old Trueblood, Skelton, or Milek article than some of the new stuff.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
61 Posts
When I joined the NRA I signed up for the Rifleman and I think the NRA has a publication more suited to hunting as well. I wonder if what is missing is some varity. Sometimes it seems like the same people are writing about the same things. And the issue is kinda thin when you count the number of pages. They are doing Gods work in our capital and in programs across the nation and I like the sections on where gun shows and area shoots are and the news is good too.
Maybe its tuffer than it looks. How many times can you write about a black rifle and the slight differences from one brand to another. I did get a kick out of the Rifleman's 10 best hand guns article 3 issues ago. I thought they kinda stunk it up with that one. And in the next 2 issues they had something positive about the Berreta 92? It did not make that top 10 article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
602 Posts
Field and Stream has become a pinko rag. Outdoor life's editorial page is a little better but the content is lacking in both. I miss the old outdoor writer's ability to tell a good story. I was enthralled as a boy and read the big 3 cover-to-cover. Now articles are all technical. And Craig Boddington seems to write 90% of the hunting stories for virtually every magazine I read. He's 'ok' but certainly doesn't captivate my imagination like the writers of the 70's that I grew up on...and, come on, give someone else a chance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,054 Posts
As I mentioned in another thread, for $19.95 you can get an online subscription to three magazines - Handloader, Rifle, and Successful Hunter which is a great deal and covers all bases. Successful Hunter is essentially an "outdoor magazine" -
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
507 Posts
I guess the ads are making it more of a bother, but they are a great read when out hunting in the woods the extra ad pages are great if in need of TP LOL. Great at the camp for fire stater too. So its like a survival tool. I just feel like we are paying for more adds!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
Most popular magazines have been nearly useless for a couple of decades now. They were never very valuable from a content perspective, IMO. The problem is fundamental, and can be demonstrated by looking at Letters to the Editor for any popular magazine over the years: rants about not enough of this and too much of that, etc., with as many viewpoints on each side of the rant. The fundamental issue is: someone at the publisher's has to try to make a best-guess at what the readership wants, and that's pretty much impossible.

The fact that we have many thousands of web site forums such as this one that have not simply survived but thrived also supports this fact. Instead of some editor trying to put together a beef-stew of content each month and hoping folks are interested in it, here we have content self-determined. In the sense that not only do I make the choice of participating in a 'gun' related or 'shooting' related site, I help define the direction and content of that site. If it seems to be too hunting related or too bullseye related or too shotgun related, I have many, many options. I move to another site, I start a conversation on a topic I'm more interested, or better yet, I ask the entire planetary community a question. Can't even come close to that with print media.

If I want a nice magazine to read on the airplane, I have to be willing to take the content that's been 'pushed' and either a) the ads that come with it, or b) the price of a magazine with limited advertising. A great example of the latter would be something like Overland Journal. Ten or twelve bucks an issue, but worth every penny if I want real content and limited advertising.

Finally, popular magazine have rarely ever provided useful reviews of anything, or answers to important questions. They can't without risking losing their advertisers, which is where basically ALL their revenue comes from. Web sites such as this one offer far more authoritative and credible information, because they're self-auditing, if you will. It's a 'pull' model here...not a 'push' model. More better.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top