Quote:

---

Mardi...

> But in the *plus* column we have:
> um....

I would list the continued existence of S&T.

it's been a rough few years for publications, and we at S&T are not immune. many of the belt-tightening changes you note would have happened even without the magazine's sale.

clear skies,
Kelly

---

And many probably wouldn't have. I doubt that William Sheehan and Roger Sinnott (and now you, Kelly) would have been cut if the health of the magazine were a major concern. (As I understand things, Sheehan wasn't even notified - just dropped from the masthead!) I have the distinct impression that we are seeing a product squeezed for the last dollar before being discarded.
If the new management of S&T continues to divest itself of everything that made it what it was, its continued existence is very much in doubt. S&T used to be like a bunch of observing buddies, and spoke directly to the amateur. To me! Now, the faceless corporation is sacking everyone I "knew", and the quality of the magazine has been nosediving in every area. S&T now has what, about 50% of the circulation that Astronomy magazine has? How did that happen?? S&T used to be the undisputed champ of American astronomy magazines. Now it's become a shadow of itself. I never thought I'd be looking for a substitute, but I am now.

In fairness: I suspect the climate at S&T has become one of fear, and I certainly can't blame the remaining staff if the work has suffered. But still, the quality goes down while the price stays up. Not a combination that evokes optimism or continued loyalty.

--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
8" Meade 826C

Post Extras