Re: [Paddlewise] SK is Alright by Me

At 10:18 AM 12/3/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Tomckayak_at_aol.com wrote:
>> 
John said << The early years of Sea Kayaker were probably its
best but I think this has more to do with the nature of sea kayaking 
than the current editorship of SK. >>

Tom said:>> The thing that made Sea Kayaker special were the safety 
articles. It was the main reason I collected back issues. I have an
almost complete collection of the first ten years. Remember they use 
to be a quarterly.>>
 
>> To this day no other sports magazine documents deaths/injures in 
their sport. From people that worked at SK I know that the Editor is 
under pressure to down play the accident reports.>>

Ralph said:>Advertising is a mixed blessing.  While it helps sustain a 
publication, it can also hinder its articles and editorial content.><snip>

And Doug says: I've spent a lot of time with both the editor and the
executive editor at Sea Kayaker -- on the phone and via e-mail. I consider
them friends. Even when they are busy, they always field my calls. By this
I mean I chat a lot with them, and they are usually very open to at least
discuss things *if* you treat them as the editors and assume they know what
*they* are doing. Even so, some of the conversations I've had seem to have
worked their way indirectly toward some of the editorial, printed content.
While I do get the cold shoulder on some issues, SK have come around to my
way of thinking on at least one or two issues recently -- though in the
end, all this talk of what each wants or doesn't want, it is all individual
opinion often, anyway, right?  

One of the more objective concerns expressed (and it was shared by another
very wise PW'er who has a certain chemistry about him) was that while it
lends veracity to have accident reports written up by the actual people
involved, there still should be a review by an independent third party. The
report of my own incident at Trial Island was written by myself, as were
the conclusions. This is kind of like editing your own manuscript. It was
my first article for SK, and while I was uncomfortable writing it, it *was*
silently reviewed by someone (another PW'er). Still not ideal. Then came
the Lone Madsen tragedy, as well as an incident off Scotland - again, no
independent review (well, there *were* letters to the editor in the
aftermath with suggestions on why the folks got into trouble). So, after
many months, I was finally told by the editor that I was right (they never
stated it that way, of course) - that they were not going to do first hand
accident reports without outside review. Vindicated. Hey, they don't call
us Paddlewise for nothin', ya know.    

The safety/accident reports are the most requested reason for back issues
and copying at SK. People are not morbid. The sea is genuinely malignant at
times, and people want to know how to avoid similar predicaments as those
for whom trouble has already occurred. And I know for a fact that SK
doesn't publish accounts just to sell magazines or attract by way of the
usual media modus operandi, namely, "if it bleeds, it leads". They do it as
a public safety service, if you like. And I also know that while there is
pressure to tone-down sensationalism and gore, the current editorial staff
will never subordinate to its advertisers on this issue. (I've heard of
Pacific Northwest retailers who don't like carrying SK 'cause it has
articles on surfing, and someone could get hurt -- can you imagine!). (That
piece of info didn't come from SK staff). 

I'd like to respond even more directly. I do believe that over the last
year I have gained some understanding of the involutional nature that is
part and parcel with the editorial business. Complexities abound. Although
I have not done a lot of articles for SK, every one of them, including and
especially safety articles, are massaged rather heavily by the editorial
staff. This can be rather frustrating to the writer, very expert or not.
Grammar and sentence structure, no problem; but when content and intent are
manipulated, it can be very irksome. But, the editorial staff has
parameters whose edges must be defined by someone who has the best
interests of the readership at heart. No one has ever escaped editing, not
even Nigel.

I share a talent with another safety writer for a bit of circumlocution and
excursive wordage. While I feel strongly that the more you flesh-out an
incident or technique article and head down promising bunny trails, then
the more informative; yet that doesn't exactly work when the magazine has a
finite number of pages (Matt's full report on the Storm Island rescue was
up to 23,000 words, all good stuff of course, but? My last paddle float
article started at 8,000 words - a little too much). It is up to the
editor(s) to cap-off where they feel necessary, and at a point where they
feel the readership can tolerate it. I also know they will go longer if
content is really good and necessary. My tether article coming out next
issue, started at 2,500 words, and they asked for another 1500 -- I wasn't
going to say no, and they had to bump something else. However, someone has
to make a call on length. As far as content, permit me to say every writer
is encumbered by their own bias as to what constitutes necessary reportage,
detail, and what the main contributory factors are with respect to an
accident/incident. The safety editor must judiciously expropriate from a
submitted safety manuscript, something usable, readable, and advantageous
that makes sense for the readership -- who's knowledge and experience are
at various levels and often at variance with what the writers assume.

Over all, I'd like to exculpate the SK editorial staff to a large degree.
No they are not perfect, and yes, there has to be some indirect deference
to advertisers. But, they really do try hard to please their loyal
readership. If you talk to people you have worked with editors from other
outdoor magazines, they all sat SK are easy to worh with in comparison.

The tug-of-war between editor and writer is an age old one, and the
struggle will will never end as long as journalism remains in its current
format. I've let myself be knotted into this thread because one of my
reasons for joining PW is one of sharing info and clarifying issues - it
works reciprocally of course. Also, when we look globally at all the
paddling magazines out there like Canoe & Kayak, etc, as well as
newsletters both small and large, then add in Paddlewise and other
listserver groups, I think the picture knits together very well indeed.
Well, if you don't like SK, don't buy it. If you have not looked at it for
a while, pick one up and see. If you like it but would like more dimension
in a certain subject, send something in. One thing hasn't changed since the
early days of SK -- you need to leave your ragazines on the armchair, get
off the couch, and get out and paddle (okay, okay, kayak-tobogganing for
some of you!). 

BC'in Ya
Doug Lloyd  
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not
to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************