Telescope Reviews: Re: Astronomy magazine content.

I see these threads poke up from time to time, and I've given it a lot of thought myself. There are a few basic problems with these "good ole' days" ideas.

First, magazines are not and never were intended to be all things to all people. They stand in between the instantly-stale newspaper and the more permanent book. Their purpose is primarily to expose readers to a broader range of subjects than simply reading books would allow, and to do so in more depth than a daily newspaper column could. As such, they always have to balance the need to be current with the need to be timeless, while at the same time striking a balance between being too deep and too shallow, nor can they afford to be too narrow in a wide field such as astronomy.

It is all fine and good to complain about how things used to be better, but the world doesn't stay the same. New technologies change people. There are books about how Google makes people stupid - the average person can no longer read a complex argument without losing track. Early exposure to media makes multitasking more common and constant, and thus attention spans are down. Magazines have to fit into this new (admittedly worse) situation - they must reach the readers who are there.

Page count is probably the most deceptive measurement to use. The real measure would be pages of content vs. pages of advertising, and I'd bet the ratio is relatively unchanged from the "grand days" of the past. Advertising revenues are down for print media as more money gets caught up in online advertising. Whether such advertising is more effective is for the bean counters to consider, but the reality is that the 'Net is taking dollars away from what used to be the only real game in town for telescope companies.

Online delivery is, for the most part, a joke. Amateur Astronomy offers a $2 discount if you go online only. I find it hard to believe that printing and mailing of 4 issues costs just $0.50/issue. The RASC Journal is perhaps more honest, charging a hefty $20+ for printed pages compared to the online version.

The only real question to ask today is the same one that has always been asked: Are you getting value for your money? If the magazines have nothing to offer you, or what they offer you is so poor in comparison to the price, your decision is obvious. I have found that for topics that interest me, there are high-quality, recently published books that cover these subjects in far greater depth exist. I also find that in many cases, I would not have discovered an interest in these topics if not for those magazines that are supposedly so lacking. So the magazines fulfill their purpose by giving me exposure to many different aspects of the hobby.

I suspect that few who complain about the magazines have tried their hand even at creating a simple newsletter, and those that have realize that the task is far harder than it appears. Still, the difficulty in creating your own magazine today is vastly lower than what it was even a decade ago, and publishing online is a viable option to test-market a concept. Good luck to all who try.

--------------------
Orion SkyQuest 4.5XT
Orion SkyQuest XT10i w/COL
Urban (red) skies
Limiting Mag 3.5-4.0 Average

Post Extras