Telescope Reviews: Re: The Trouble with the Magazines

I am finding this to be very interesting thread on several levels, some professional and some personal. First, I want to make it clear up front that any opinions I state here are purely my own and do not in any way reflect those of Astronomy magazine, for which I do a fair amount of writing. And second, realize that I am not full-time staff of the magazine; I am strictly a freelancer.

Okay, that said, Unk's original blog was very thought provoking. Like Rod, I grew up in a time when the anticipation of getting in the mail any astro magazine that I subscribed to, be it S&T or Astronomy, or some now deceased titles like Modern Astronomy or Observer's Sky, was almost too much to bear.

Over the years, the surviving magazines have evolved to reflect the times as well as the state of the hobby. Witness the shift from telescope making in the 1960s to the SCT/astrophotography revolution of the 1970s, and later the giant Dob movement in the 1980s. Through it all, both Astronomy and S&T did good jobs keeping up with the changes, and in some cases, leading the charge themselves.

But society overall has changed in ways that the magazines can't do, nor can any print medium for that matter. Today, we expect instant information, instant answers to our questions without minimal independent research, and we want all of that for free.

No doubt about it, the Internet has been a boon. Instant communication, free exchange of information, and immediate access to news are just three of the ways that the Internet has impacted our lives. I know many amateurs who have let their long-time subscriptions to both magazines lapse simply because they can find all they need to support their interest on-line. "Why buy the cow when they're giving away the milk for free?"

Although that is true, the problem is -- and others, including Tom T, have already stated this previously in this thread -- on the Internet, everything is taken as being equal. The idea of editing, reviewing, authenticating, or for that matter, just proofreading articles, web sites, and yes, even blogs, all seem to be things of the past. Web sites on all sorts of topics are created and released without ever bothering to check if they're factually correct. And yet, the vast majority of people will take them as gospel. Yes, immediate information is great, but only if it accurate. Otherwise, it's garbage.

But how to tell the good from the bad? That's a point I always raise to students in the college classes that I teach. Someone in this thread earlier said it's easy to tell good from bad, but I'd take exception to that. There are plenty of web sites that sound good at first, but prove bogus ultimately. Really, unless you know the subject matter yourself, or unless you know the source is unimpeachable, then you have no way of knowing what's right from what's wrong. The author could be writing out of ignorance. Or he could be writing to purposely try to mislead visitors. Either way, misinformation is being perpetuated.

Magazines, however, have trained, skilled editors who ensure, to the best of their ability, that everything hitting the printed page is accurate. I've seen that myself a few times when I've sent in my binocular column to my editor at Astronomy, only to have him write me back with questions/corrections. No one is infallible, which is why peer review is so important. Many web sites are missing that key element.

Okay, one more thing, and then I'll step off my soapbox. Rod makes an excellent point that print media is a one-way street. Both magazines do have blogs where readers can comment, and Astronomy.com maintains forums for readers to chime in, but by and large, he's right. He's even righter when it comes to book authors. Rod is one of only three I can think of who maintain active web sites as extensions for his books. (The other two are Bob Thompson and moi.) I've long held that authors and readers need to be able to communicate with each other. Whether the reader has a question, a correction, a complaint, or just wants to say "thanks," he or she should be able to get in touch with the author directly. To be honest, I suspect a lot of authors don't want that openness. But I, for one, and I suspect Ron (and Bob), as well, thrive on it. I know for an absolute fact that the later editions of my book Star Ware have been better because of reader input.

Okay, that's enough spouting off. The bottom line is that I think that both magazines can and will survive in this age of instant, if not often erroneous, gratification. We consumers, as readers, however, must recognize that we often get what we pay for. It isn't cheap to produce a decent magazine monthly. But the cost of comprising quality and integrity by avoiding review and fact-checking might be much more expensive to the hobby in general in the long run.

--------------------
Phil Harrington
"Binocular Universe" Columnist, Astronomy magazine
Author: Star Ware || Star Watch || Touring the Universe through Binoculars || et al...
http://www.philharrington.net
http://www.observingsites.com
"Two eyes are better than one!"

Post Extras