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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:06 PDT