WacoFan
Bigly
Flying Magazine has been through some turmoil recently going through two Editors in Chief (Mac McClellan and Michael Maya Charles) since August or so. The new EIC is Robert Goyer. The only things I like about Flying currently (Post Bax and Len Morgan) are Peter Garrison, Les Abend (usually), occassionally Lane Wallace, but mostly Martha Lunken - who I enjoy immensely. Anyway, I usually find Flying pretty boring because with the exception of Lunken and Wallace they primarily ejaculate about the latest glass panel gizmo's, business jets or plastic tricycles. Not exactly my wheelhouse.
Anyway, I will occassionally go to Flying's website because they usually put Martha's columns up and that way I can save having to buy the magazine. So, a day or so ago I wander over, see Martha's new column and see the latest blog post from Robert Goyer (who is the primary ejaculator for gizmos). He wrote a post advocating how wonderful this technology is, how it absolutely makes flying safer, etc, etc. There were some comments below his post, including one that was incredibly well written by an engineer saying that accidents statistics didn't necessarily support what Goyer wrote, how technology was a poor substitute for stick and rudder skills, and how technology couldn't confer good judgement. The comment was respectful but clearly disagreed with the premise of the blog posting. It was good so I returned back later to see what comments would be written about the response and the response was gone - vanished - and the writer of the comment had written another one - basically "Why did you delete my post? I thought I asked good questions in a respectful way". I wrote a comment saying "Liked your post. Would have loved to read the debate around it." I returned a couple hours later and my post was gone, plus the post saying "where'd my post go". The only comments left were comments in support of the original premise of the blog entry.
Now, Flying can certainly dictate editorial and user content on their own website - just like Doug does here. Two points though: 1) Flying, if you ever had doubt, is currently nothing more than a product placement type of publication. Basically a catalog that features a couple of interesting columns wedged between commercials. 2) Be thankful for Doug - he allows contrary opinions and active debate when he could be selling out to advertisers or industry interests to become a shill.
So, Doug - if it comes down to it and you need to generate more revenue for the website - both to keep it going as well as perhaps compensate you for your time - I would be more in favor of keeping the current "open" discussions and paying a user fee as opposed to tightly controlled content or even advertisements at the level that APC now has them. Thanks for what you do.
Anyway, I will occassionally go to Flying's website because they usually put Martha's columns up and that way I can save having to buy the magazine. So, a day or so ago I wander over, see Martha's new column and see the latest blog post from Robert Goyer (who is the primary ejaculator for gizmos). He wrote a post advocating how wonderful this technology is, how it absolutely makes flying safer, etc, etc. There were some comments below his post, including one that was incredibly well written by an engineer saying that accidents statistics didn't necessarily support what Goyer wrote, how technology was a poor substitute for stick and rudder skills, and how technology couldn't confer good judgement. The comment was respectful but clearly disagreed with the premise of the blog posting. It was good so I returned back later to see what comments would be written about the response and the response was gone - vanished - and the writer of the comment had written another one - basically "Why did you delete my post? I thought I asked good questions in a respectful way". I wrote a comment saying "Liked your post. Would have loved to read the debate around it." I returned a couple hours later and my post was gone, plus the post saying "where'd my post go". The only comments left were comments in support of the original premise of the blog entry.
Now, Flying can certainly dictate editorial and user content on their own website - just like Doug does here. Two points though: 1) Flying, if you ever had doubt, is currently nothing more than a product placement type of publication. Basically a catalog that features a couple of interesting columns wedged between commercials. 2) Be thankful for Doug - he allows contrary opinions and active debate when he could be selling out to advertisers or industry interests to become a shill.
So, Doug - if it comes down to it and you need to generate more revenue for the website - both to keep it going as well as perhaps compensate you for your time - I would be more in favor of keeping the current "open" discussions and paying a user fee as opposed to tightly controlled content or even advertisements at the level that APC now has them. Thanks for what you do.
