14-07-2019, 08:12 AM
As someone who types words and edits the words of others for a living, I sympathise with the editorial staff of any publication that relies on copy from 'the membership'.
For me, when looking at Amateur Radio magazine specifically, I see a number of issues that detract from it's overall appeal.
It is trying to fill too many roles, that is to say, who is it aimed at? Who is the audience? I don't know what the WIA sees as the answer to this, but in its current forms the magazine doesn't really feel like it pitches at specific groups particularly well. The editors should consider compartmentalising the magazine more formally by having distinct sections for technical copy, editorial copy, social/club copy and possibly a section for prospective amateurs and/or newcomers.
This newcomer section is problematic because I am not sure that it would be easy to strike a balance between assisting the newcomer and boring them to death when the editors rely on content from random contributors. Many of the newcomer focused articles published over the years have tended to be written in a voice that either feels like an 18th Century headmaster talking to a poorly performed student or the articles feel like they are talking to a six year old. It is a very difficult task for professional writers to get this right, so with amateur contributions it is doubly hard.
This leads to the next issue - a lack of editorial oversight and a lack of editorial direction setting. Publishers use style guides and house policies to inform he way articles are written for their publications. These styles and policies will vary from publication to publication and sometimes from article type to article type. By enforcing these style guides gives the reader a feeling of continuity across their interaction with the magazine.
Enforcing a style guide is pretty easy in a publishing house. This is where editors and sub-editors come in. They edit and proof submissions and work with the writers and authors to massage the copy into shape. In a magazine like Amateur Radio it would be very difficult. The volunteer editors and staff simply do not have the time (or will) to do such a job on each and every article that is submitted. Over the years it has become apparent that many articles aren't even proofread before going to press.
How the WIA overcomes these editorial issues is a difficult thing, production and enforcement of a style guide is probably needed but that is fraught with problems when using membership contributors, as amateur writers do not always appreciate an editors suggestions and directions - it is sometimes seen as a personal affront and leads to many other difficulties.
At the very least the editors need to look at proofing, layout, flow and passive and active voice in articles, along deleting the endless disclaimers contributors feel it is necessary to include in the text - if they are worried about pedants and trolls writing nasty emails and letters to the editors, simply do not publish those emails and letters. Including the disclaimers detract from the meaning of the article and gives the reader a feeling that the writer is timid and unsure of their knowledge.
One tricky issue is the technical vs. social vs. trying attract newcomers balance. It is a very difficult path to tread. I would suggest that a paper magazine is not the ideal place to try and attract younger newcomers as they will have difficulty sourcing it and probably won't have an interest once they do, given the arcane subject matter in most articles.
Given that the editorial staff are volunteer, as are the contributors, it is a mammoth task to get it right and bedded down inside the deadlines - I have no doubt I wouldn't make the grade, so I do applaud those who do and I do appreciate their efforts.
For me, when looking at Amateur Radio magazine specifically, I see a number of issues that detract from it's overall appeal.
It is trying to fill too many roles, that is to say, who is it aimed at? Who is the audience? I don't know what the WIA sees as the answer to this, but in its current forms the magazine doesn't really feel like it pitches at specific groups particularly well. The editors should consider compartmentalising the magazine more formally by having distinct sections for technical copy, editorial copy, social/club copy and possibly a section for prospective amateurs and/or newcomers.
This newcomer section is problematic because I am not sure that it would be easy to strike a balance between assisting the newcomer and boring them to death when the editors rely on content from random contributors. Many of the newcomer focused articles published over the years have tended to be written in a voice that either feels like an 18th Century headmaster talking to a poorly performed student or the articles feel like they are talking to a six year old. It is a very difficult task for professional writers to get this right, so with amateur contributions it is doubly hard.
This leads to the next issue - a lack of editorial oversight and a lack of editorial direction setting. Publishers use style guides and house policies to inform he way articles are written for their publications. These styles and policies will vary from publication to publication and sometimes from article type to article type. By enforcing these style guides gives the reader a feeling of continuity across their interaction with the magazine.
Enforcing a style guide is pretty easy in a publishing house. This is where editors and sub-editors come in. They edit and proof submissions and work with the writers and authors to massage the copy into shape. In a magazine like Amateur Radio it would be very difficult. The volunteer editors and staff simply do not have the time (or will) to do such a job on each and every article that is submitted. Over the years it has become apparent that many articles aren't even proofread before going to press.
How the WIA overcomes these editorial issues is a difficult thing, production and enforcement of a style guide is probably needed but that is fraught with problems when using membership contributors, as amateur writers do not always appreciate an editors suggestions and directions - it is sometimes seen as a personal affront and leads to many other difficulties.
At the very least the editors need to look at proofing, layout, flow and passive and active voice in articles, along deleting the endless disclaimers contributors feel it is necessary to include in the text - if they are worried about pedants and trolls writing nasty emails and letters to the editors, simply do not publish those emails and letters. Including the disclaimers detract from the meaning of the article and gives the reader a feeling that the writer is timid and unsure of their knowledge.
One tricky issue is the technical vs. social vs. trying attract newcomers balance. It is a very difficult path to tread. I would suggest that a paper magazine is not the ideal place to try and attract younger newcomers as they will have difficulty sourcing it and probably won't have an interest once they do, given the arcane subject matter in most articles.
Given that the editorial staff are volunteer, as are the contributors, it is a mammoth task to get it right and bedded down inside the deadlines - I have no doubt I wouldn't make the grade, so I do applaud those who do and I do appreciate their efforts.