SAM July Issue

[Jon Bryon]

I don't want to stir the pot (too much!), but since I live in China (which not only means I am not one of the 'stand in Smiths and read the magazine' geezers, but I also pay the cover price again in postage) I have no one to discuss the editorial in the latest issue of SAM with. (Note to people who care: I am aware that sentence finished with a preposition.) There's (sic) combative words in there and I'm not sure I can restrain myself from responding. I've tried discussing it with the wife, but she doesn't quite get it :-)

I know these threads get closed down quickly, but I've never read an editorial quite like it. If anyone knows of somewhere it can be discussed openly, please point me in the right direction. (And to the mods: feel free to close this; I don't want to cause trouble, just shoot the breeze on what is clearly quite an emotional topic.)

Cheers

Jon

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

I don't want to stir the pot (too much!), but since I live in China (which not only means I am not one of the 'stand in Smiths and read the magazine' geezers, but I also pay the cover price again in postage) I have no one to discuss the editorial in the latest issue of SAM with. (Note to people who care: I am aware that sentence finished with a preposition.) There's (sic) combative words in there and I'm not sure I can restrain myself from responding. I've tried discussing it with the wife, but she doesn't quite get it :-)

I know these threads get closed down quickly, but I've never read an editorial quite like it. If anyone knows of somewhere it can be discussed openly, please point me in the right direction. (And to the mods: feel free to close this; I don't want to cause trouble, just shoot the breeze on what is clearly quite an emotional topic.)

Cheers

Jon

Hi Jon - I thought that one was one of the "better" offerings, but what I've learnt is that when SAMs editorials take on this passive aggressive stance it seems to me to be the equivalent of printed trolling; so I know just tut and move on.

Happy to PM on it though if you feel the need.

Jonners

[Vlamgat9]

I don't want to stir the pot (too much!), but since I live in China (which not only means I am not one of the 'stand in Smiths and read the magazine' geezers, but I also pay the cover price again in postage) I have no one to discuss the editorial in the latest issue of SAM with. (Note to people who care: I am aware that sentence finished with a preposition.) There's (sic) combative words in there and I'm not sure I can restrain myself from responding. I've tried discussing it with the wife, but she doesn't quite get it :-)

I know these threads get closed down quickly, but I've never read an editorial quite like it. If anyone knows of somewhere it can be discussed openly, please point me in the right direction. (And to the mods: feel free to close this; I don't want to cause trouble, just shoot the breeze on what is clearly quite an emotional topic.)

Cheers

Jon

What does it say? I no longer buy SAM.

[Panzer Vor!!!]

well makes you wonder what was said

[Madam I'm Adam]

I guess I'll have to go and stand in WHSmiths and read the editorial!

First time I've been interested by aeroplane modelling for years...

Adam

[Troffa]

Oooh sounds interesting, but as I'm in Algeria, not back for a couple of weeks, and the SAM website appears to have crashed- can anyone do a quick summary or PM me the gist of the editorial?

cheers,

troffa

[BrandX]

Oooh sounds interesting, but as I'm in Algeria, not back for a couple of weeks, and the SAM website appears to have crashed- can anyone do a quick summary or PM me the gist of the editorial?

cheers,

troffa

+1 here!

(Or, of course, there's always the bastion of uncensored rant-fests that is Zone-Right -SORRY, -Five. )

[Panzer Vor!!!]

I guess I'll have to go and stand in WHSmiths and read the editorial!

First time I've been interested by aeroplane modelling for years...

Adam

ok thern come back and tell us

[Jon Bryon]

Here's a bullet point summary:

*SAM has been under the current editorship for 4 years

*SAM has been very successful over this past 4 years.

*The current editor went back and compared the first few issues he edited with other magazines currently being published and decided they were 'not all that bad'.

*Initially, the current editor took a lot of flak for mistakes in SAM, but he has determined that (1st issue aside), most other magazines have more mistakes.

*The current editor occasionally reads 'the competition' and is 'amazed' at the amount of 'blatant errors' they contain and 'generally poor writing practices...making it through the editorial process...even in some of the most well respected...titles'.

*The current editor is a little annoyed by this, not so much for himself, but for his contributors.

*Apparently there is a website (presumably this one) where people actually discuss the content of magazines.

*Everyone who contributes to these threads only reads SAM in Smiths and doesn't buy it.

*Modelling authors in SAM did not go to Cambridge and get a degree in English. They can take good photos of their models and are working on improving their writing skills.

*Some articles have to be completely rewritten.

*Apparently it is an irony that none of these super-educated prize-winning writers, whilst engaging in criticism of SAM, have ever submitted an article.

So much to say! I guess I was shocked because I think this is the first time I have read a modelling magazine editorial that attacks its competition, its paying readership and contributors to a website.

Like Jonners above, I too think SAM has improved, especially the Aviation in Profile articles since they brought more experienced writers on board. But I also agree that this kind of editorializing is trolling. I should know better and keep my mouth shut. But I can't ;-)

For the record, I will state that SAM continues to feature beautifully built and photographed models, which is the main reason I am prepared to spend £10 a month on my copy.

[Nigel Bunker]

Like a lot of people here, I have my opinion on SAM and its editor, but I will keep my own counsel and stay quiet.

[AndyC]

Agreed - a little bit of paper trolling - come on Jay, get real. Ironic however that the current (August) issue of SAM has two glaring errors in the first 5 pages...

[Spence]

Here's a bullet point summary:

*SAM has been under the current editorship for 4 years

*SAM has been very successful over this past 4 years.

*The current editor went back and compared the first few issues he edited with other magazines currently being published and decided they were 'not all that bad'.

*Initially, the current editor took a lot of flak for mistakes in SAM, but he has determined that (1st issue aside), most other magazines have more mistakes.

*The current editor occasionally reads 'the competition' and is 'amazed' at the amount of 'blatant errors' they contain and 'generally poor writing practices...making it through the editorial process...even in some of the most well respected...titles'.

*The current editor is a little annoyed by this, not so much for himself, but for his contributors.

*Apparently there is a website (presumably this one) where people actually discuss the content of magazines.

*Everyone who contributes to these threads only reads SAM in Smiths and doesn't buy it.

*Modelling authors in SAM did not go to Cambridge and get a degree in English. They can take good photos of their models and are working on improving their writing skills.

*Some articles have to be completely rewritten.

*Apparently it is an irony that none of these super-educated prize-winning writers, whilst engaging in criticism of SAM, have ever submitted an article.

So much to say! I guess I was shocked because I think this is the first time I have read a modelling magazine editorial that attacks its competition, its paying readership and contributors to a website.

Like Jonners above, I too think SAM has improved, especially the Aviation in Profile articles since they brought more experienced writers on board. But I also agree that this kind of editorializing is trolling. I should know better and keep my mouth shut. But I can't ;-)

For the record, I will state that SAM continues to feature beautifully built and photographed models, which is the main reason I am prepared to spend £10 a month on my copy.

I'm going to break a self-imposed rule that I've lived by in twenty years of writing professionally for the modelling press and comment on another magazine:

If You you think you were annoyed by this you should try entering my head. I was absolutely furious. In fact. I'm still seething...

Spence.

[JagRigger]

I've got every copy of SAM.

I delve into them only a couple of times a year these days, for research - the net is so much easier, and from my perspective this is where the magazine has changed.

I believe it has become more mainstream and tried to appeal to the masses more, with the knowledge that they probably have net access too. It is still a very creditable publication, but personally I liked some of the older format - the 6 or so quick reviews towards the back for instance, and of course Tailpiece - surely someone could have taken over from Mike ?

There you go - I buy it, and I've commented

[Jon Bryon]

Spence: I feel you pain. And that of several other editors too...

[andym]

I couldn't care less how "badly" the articles are written ( I've yet to read one I couldn't understand) or how pretty the photos of the finished kit are if the article then goes on to ignore or gloss over gross shape errors, badly fitting parts, omissions and inaccurate, poor quality decals. And that goes for any modelling mag.

What do others think?

Andy

[pigsty]

If You you think you were annoyed by this you should try entering my head. I was absolutely furious. In fact. I'm still seething...

Calm. Ca-aa-alm. You're getting off the treadmill in a few weeks. Let it wash over you ...

[Jon Bryon]

I don't put that much weight on accuracy issues. I can't reasonably expect the author to know everything. I simply make it my practice to ask on the forums to get specialist advice on accuracy. So that largely doesn't bother me too much...until we come to models that I'm particularly interested in with well-established errors that go unmentioned (e.g. Hobbyboss F-111s, A-7s, Tornados, etc.). Then I can get quite miffed ;-)

What I don't like is when people try to apologise for the manufacturers. This often happens when it comes to accuracy (the 'it looks like...' argument, or 'I am not a rivet counter...'), but also in other areas. For example, in the magazine we are discussing, the justification for Hasegawa charging £70 for a 1/48 TA-4 just sounds ridiculous.

Jon

[Spence]

Calm. Ca-aa-alm. You're getting off the treadmill in a few weeks. Let it wash over you ...

You're probably right..!

Spence

[Nick Millman]

I still miss the old SAM format. In fact I get more pleasure re-reading the old ones, with their fuzzy black & white photos, than the new format, however successful it is. The old format felt like modelling amongst old friends, warts and all, and I still refer to them. The new format feels like celebrity and angst and can be alienating in what is written. The issues I received before not renewing my subscription sit in a pile and might as well be in the bin. Simple as that.

Some may love the new format. Good for them. To me the real SAM is as dead and buried as Scale Models and Frog. It's like the pub on the corner that still has the same name on the sign but has changed beyond all recognition and attracts a completely different clientele. I can remember when I first discovered it, several thousand miles from England, and how much I liked the format. When the new format magazines came along with their increasing emphasis on big colour photos and large scale, museum quality, celebrity modelling SAM remained for a while like an old friend. Slightly old-fashioned by comparison but familiar and comforting. In its revamp to compete with the new wave that followed it somehow lost its soul together with its original USP.

Editorials are supposed to reflect the collective viewpoint of the magazine towards aspects of its subject matter, either generally or in respect of a specific topic, often related to that issue's contents or current news, or sometimes to pose questions about them, even controversially. Since the writing in a magazine is essentially the "glue" that holds all the visuals together and the editorial kicks it all off I think good writing is important. Poorly written articles in a magazine dedicated to a special interest seem a contradiction in terms. But let's face it the prevailing concept that all change must perforce be good and always result in something better is not limited to modelling magazines.

[spfparker]

How to win friends and influence people........not

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

we'll I've bought every single issue of SAM since the Sea Harrier decal issue in 1980(?), so I think I've paid my dues enough to comment further.

Im not sure how practical this is, but wouldn't it make more sense for a magazine editor ( who obviously does look at modelling websites) to approach modellers with builds and ask them if they'd like to submit an article? rather than waiting for people to submit them?

That way the editor can choose the builds that suite his mag's "house style" and select modellers who can take reasonable pics and string a coherent sentence together.

It would also mean that modellers who may not submit work, because they think its not good enough, or who had simply never thought of submitting might be in for a pleasant surprise: Its surely better to be approached with the idea thats its an honour to be asked, rather than submit and get rejected.

Its very true that we whinge and moan a lot on the internet, but its also a vast pool of highly talented modellers, waiting to be tapped by print mags for articles and features.

I've said my piece on mag's commenting about accuracy before, so my thoughts are known. I think its fair to say the situation has improved a little, but id still like to see the mags come out to bat on the modellers side more. Buts that my own opinion.

cheers

Jonners, with a degree from Oxford, not Cambridge (perish the thought)

[Jon Bryon]

we'll I've bought every single issue of SAM since the Sea Harrier decal issue in 1980(?), so I think I've paid my dues enough to comment further.

Im not sure how practical this is, but wouldn't it make more sense for a magazine editor ( who obviously does look at modelling websites) to approach modellers with builds and ask them if they'd like to submit an article? rather than waiting for people to submit them?

That way the editor can choose the builds that suite his mag's "house style" and select modellers who can take reasonable pics and string a coherent sentence together.

It would also mean that modellers who may not submit work, because they think its not good enough, or who had simply never thought of submitting might be in for a pleasant surprise: Its surely better to be approached with the idea thats its an honour to be asked, rather than submit and get rejected.

Its very true that we whinge and moan a lot on the internet, but its also a vast pool of highly talented modellers, waiting to be tapped by print mags for articles and features.

I've said my piece on mag's commenting about accuracy before, so my thoughts are known. I think its fair to say the situation has improved a little, but id still like to see the mags come out to bat on the modellers side more. Buts that my own opinion.

cheers

Jonners, with a degree from Oxford, not Cambridge (perish the thought)

OTOH, some us (including your good self) do, I feel, put out quite good quality stuff for free, and I like that. I write modelling articles and I photograph my models. I publish them for all and sundry who care to visit my website to view, free of charge. As a concession to my vanity, they are also published on Hyperscale. That's why I have never submitted anything to a magazine. (Note: this is not a criticism of anyone who does submit articles; on the contrary, please submit more, since I cannot get enough of modelling magazines! It's simply an answer to Mr Laverty's final paragraph.)

Jon, with degrees from Cambridge, not Oxford (perish the thought)

[Harry Lime]

I am as old as Scale Aircraft Modelling (in fact it is about 6mths older than me), and I grew up with it. Part of the joy of modelling for me was to delve into my Dad's stack of them and bring out the copy with the Aircraft in Detail featuring whatever kit I'd just bought from Beatties and hungrily reading up on it. Then those technique articles started catching my eye and my modelling skills started to improve. Then I started paying attention to the profiles and colour notes on various things and started making models that weren't included in the kit decal options. Then I started nagging my dad to get me the occassional Modeldecal sheet/resin seat/ordnance when he was ordering from Hannants/TAHS/Aeroclub etc and I started paying more attention to the smaller details.

Then when I returned to the hobby, SAM was the first publication I turned to 10 years ago. It was the same familiar combination of reviews, techniques and information that had nurtured my interest in aviation and helped mould my modelling (no pun intended!!). Imagine my chagrin then when it went and changed. The loss of detail in the reviews, the lack of depth in the build articles and the glossing over of faults in kits means I voted with my wallet and don't buy it anymore.

I get more useful modelling information from Britmodeller these days than any of the model magazines I used to buy. The model magazines seem to be a bit of a shop window these days, just without the helpful reviews of the stuff in that window. I'll occassionally buy a magazine if there is something useful in it, but that is not very often these days.

And, yes, having studied English at Uni, some of the rather basic errors in spelling and grammer that seep into some of the articles/magazines these days is inexcusable and utterly annoying.

Mark.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Harry Lime

[Spence]

And, yes, having studied English at Uni, some of the rather basic errors in spelling and grammer that seep into some of the articles/magazines these days is inexcusable and utterly annoying.

Mark.

Hi Mark, just for fun...

"And yes, having studied English at university, some of the rather basic errors in spelling and grammar that seep into some of the articles and magazines these days are inexcusable and utterly annoying."

Sorry, but I couldn't resist!

Spence

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

OTOH, some us (including your good self) do, I feel, put out quite good quality stuff for free, and I like that. I write modelling articles and I photograph my models. I publish them for all and sundry who care to visit my website to view, free of charge. As a concession to my vanity, they are also published on Hyperscale. That's why I have never submitted anything to a magazine. (Note: this is not a criticism of anyone who does submit articles; on the contrary, please submit more, since I cannot get enough of modelling magazines! It's simply an answer to Mr Laverty's final paragraph.)

Jon, with degrees from Cambridge, not Oxford (perish the thought)

Hi Jon - I wasn't meaning to denigrate anyone who does what you do, far from it. My point is that if an editorial is whinging about online critics who never bother to write articles etc etc, but harp from the wings, then rather than whinge, why not win hearts and minds and invite people from websites to write articles.

We always see print editorials asking for more contributions - so presumably theres a shortage ( or at least you can never have enough of them), so if the mags want more, go and ask people directly. Sure they can say no, but I bet a lot would be flattered and say yes.

When you look at the number of excellent WIP threads on here and elsewhere, theres no shortage of modellers who seemingly should "make the grade" , and they are all happy to freely make their builds available on the net (and I agree, vanity plays a strong part in this too, but how much more so actually to be "published"?).

So the question is - if there are so many online builds that would seem to be "printable quality" why do so few submit them to print mags? Ergo - editors go ask them.

Cheers

Jonners

its not your fault that you went to the wrong place too.