Astronomy magazine VS Sky and Telescope
Posted 26 August 2009 - 12:39 AM
Some people prefer S&T while other go with Astronomy magazine.What's the significance of each one that differentiate both from each other?
Posted 26 August 2009 - 04:25 AM
Posted 26 August 2009 - 09:10 AM
One thing that bugged the heck out of me was at the beginning of a feature article, they would invariably have a two-page spread of some primitive, impressionistic, stupid cartoon that *sort of* related to the content, with one paragraph of the article on the second page. Hey, I'm paying for those pages, and I don't want to look at someone's kid's drawing of space!
Maybe it's just me. S&T does some of that too, but not enough to hit critical mass with me. Astronomy was rife with it.
Another thing was the insipid, childish eyecatcher phrases. I'll never forget Steve O'Meara's eyecatcher: "It may seem hard to believe, but meteors can do the twist!". Gawd! (Actually that was in S&T; but Steve is with Astronomy now).
There are other things. But you get the idea. I do miss Bob Berman's column, though.
Posted 26 August 2009 - 09:44 AM
Posted 26 August 2009 - 11:17 AM
I'd suggest that you do the same. Examine both. Take your time and get a sense for how you react to their respective content. (If you have a library nearby that carries even one of them, you can cut down the cost at the newsstand.) That will tell you which one is best for you.
Posted 26 August 2009 - 01:00 PM
I don't subscribe to either magazine, but I do buy off the stands from time to time. I find that the two magazines compliment each other. I tend to buy them for their articles and not so much observering. Sometimes I buy both at the stand, other times I buy just one or the other, or none at all if the articles don't interest me. I do like the observing articles, but I rarely buy either based on observing.
I do hate to say it, but I often consult the net and my observing books for observing info. Growing up before the net, I anticipated Astronomy each month just so I could read the "Backyard Astronomer."
How times have changed...
Posted 26 August 2009 - 01:15 PM
Posted 26 August 2009 - 03:56 PM
there is still Amateur Astronomy Magazine
Posted 26 August 2009 - 03:59 PM
For me, Astronomy started down a slippery slope during the time Bonnie Gordon was running the magazine
Yep. "Running it into the ground," it seemed. It's improved a lot since then, and I do still subscribe, though I certainly still have "issues" with the thing:
Posted 26 August 2009 - 04:59 PM
then decided S&T seemed better for me
Posted 26 August 2009 - 06:49 PM
But then I read some of the Original Astronomy magazines and they were wonderful just like S&Ts. But the problem is that in these magazine there is a lot of advertisement in between that spoils the joy of reading. Too many ads, less articles.
Posted 26 August 2009 - 06:59 PM
Posted 27 August 2009 - 01:15 AM
The thing with the DVD "offer" and subsequent dun letters is an wonderful example of a bad marketing strategy. Who thought THAT was a good idea? Repackaged episodes of "The Universe" at $28 a whack?
The collateral damage from this debacle is that I've pretty much stopped watching the Hysteria Channel, too.
Posted 31 August 2009 - 02:45 PM
Astronomy magazine seems to be somewhat better recently. S&T's quality is still there, if a bit thinner the past few years.
Bottom line: I keep my S&T's, and usually toss Astronomy magazine.
Posted 01 September 2009 - 07:45 PM
S&T was always geared a bit more toward the "serious" amateur and was a lot of fun too. E.C. Krupp's column's alone were worth the money.
But today honestly I can't justify the expense when you can get most (not all) of that on the 'net or just visit the library (mine carries both). Kinda sad really when it seems the hobby is larger and more accessible than 20 years ago.
Posted 01 September 2009 - 07:52 PM
Posted 02 September 2009 - 06:58 AM
I'm coming from the perspective of a visual observer. Sue French's column is the gold standard.
No doubt about that...but Astronomy has Steve O'Meara...so I still subscribe to both. BTW, S&T was fatter this time, I beleive.
Posted 02 September 2009 - 08:29 AM
Both are most appreciated when removed from the coffee table.
Posted 05 September 2009 - 04:45 PM
I subscribed to Astronomy from '84 to '96. After they got rid of the nice framed photo on the front cover and went all "glossy" it just wasn't the same. The Richard Berry era was great.
My start as an astronomy writer was with a two-part article on the Milky Way in Astronomy in 1983. I've been told that Richard Berry edited that article; but he left it pretty much as I wrote it. I still see occasional references to that article, so he showed good judgement in not messing with it. I owe him a word of thanks for his confidence in that article and in my writing.
It's been an entirely different story with the last two articles I've written for Astronomy, one on stellar associations that was published in the autumn of 1995 and another on Milky Way dust clouds that was published just last autumn. Both of them were 'edited' beyond recognition. What's worse, last year's article had errors in fact added to it! If they're going to change an author's article so much, they should at least send him a proof before publication.
It's this kind of carelessness in editorial work that has kept me from writing for Astronomy more often. In fact, I would not have written that article that was published last year at all but for the urging of my co-author in "Sky Vistas", Gerald Rhemann, who had taken some excellent astro-photos of southern Milky Way dust clouds.
The over-all quality of Astronomy during the 1980s was indeed much higher than it is today. Part of the problem is the general 'dumbing-down' in both magazines that has been remarked upon in CN forums about the magazines. And I for one can't understand why the magazines think they should do this. The standard of discussion on CN forums alone should tell them they are dealing with intelligent, literate readers!
Posted 06 September 2009 - 10:29 AM
leaving more casual readers who they at least think respond to the sensationalizing.
The big news in NW AR this weekend is the only two newspapers left are merging into one (to survive). I think that the same will happen to Astronomy and S&T sometime.
Posted 06 September 2009 - 01:25 PM
I agree with you that, in a larger cultural sense, the "Trouble with the Astronomy Magazines" is related to the now decades-long trend toward newspaper consolidation. The question is whether this is driven purely by the economics of publishing, or by the economics of publishing that has resulting from a "dumbing-down" of America. I don't know. But I would be REALLY surprised, given what I've seen on the CN forums, if there aren't enough "literate and intelligent" amateur astronomers to support one good, literate, intelligent magazine. Neither Astronomy nor Sky & Tel are that magazine, and if you put them together you might get a case of "two heads are thicker than one."
Posted 07 September 2009 - 02:50 PM
Posted 08 September 2009 - 08:13 AM
Posted 08 September 2009 - 09:12 AM
That's when I stop reading them. I want nothing to do with e-magazines.
Well, I've kinda been of the same opinion. But then I became attached to an e-Zine, AstroPhoto Insights, and have changed my opinion a wee bit. The deal breaker? If you can't just print the whole thing out (if it's some kinda fancy-shmancy web-stuff instead of a .pdf). I mean I gotta have something to look at durin' my err..."morning ablutions" don' I?