[CQ-Contest] What the ARRL Board did

[Roland A. Anders]

Jim:
Thank you for anwering my email, and for giving me the chance to be involved in the
decision making of the ARRL.  I am a strong supporter of the League, and have been
for the 44 years I have been a radio amateur.  Now that the BoD has decided (wisely
in my opinion) to make time for inputs from the membership on the QST coverage for
contesting and section news, I am glad to provide my thoughts on the subject..  I
hope you don't mind me "publishing" your response to me in this email which is going
out to the contest reflector.

I think an immediate issue is that of the overall editorial policy of QST--not
contest scores or station activities reports.   Questions that need to be addressed
are: What audience is QST aimed at?  Is QST just a fund raiser for ARRL, or does it
have a place in communication to the League membership?  Should QST be a tool for
furthering the growth and health of Amateur Radio--even if it isn't profitable in the
near term?  And, too, what is the role of a written publications vs. internet
postings?

As you might guess, I think QST is more than a funds source, and its goals should be
furthering the ham's ability to meet the purposes of amateur radio as set forth by
Part 97 of the Commission's rules.  In addition, it should have the purpose of
increasing the growth of amateur radio and the quality of  participation by active
licensed amateurs.   I seems to me that contesting and section participation in
League activities are positive factors in achieving these ends.  Growing amateur
radio is not not necessarily achieved "tuning" QST based on market surveys or
demographics research.  The health of amateur radio may be especially poorly served
by eliminating  from the magazine what someone deems as "special interest" material,
as I said in my original letter.  There should be articles which challenge people
technically, expand their horizons, etc.  I don't mean that the QST editorial motto
should be "all the news that fits, we print" to bastardize the NY Times motto.
Articles should be selected carefully, and technical articles should be "juried"
(which is apparently not done well at present, based on some of the wrong-headed
technical information I have seen recently in QST).  I could be convinced that space
for Section News should be reduced--perhaps drastically; also, I would not be
surprised if there were a more efficient way to present contest results--but at the
moment I am not convinced that that eliminating them from print is the answer.

Which brings me to the last question relating to printed magazines vs. internet
postings.  I read QST for entertainment.  Most of the time I read it because it is
about amateur radio, and not because I am searching for any specific information.  I
read articles about moonbounce, even though I've never done it.  I look at the
schematics of construction articles that I will never build.  I read about
DXpeditions that I never heard on the air while they were active.  I scan  the ads
with no thought of buying anything. I am browsing, and loving it.  This is especially
fun to do when I am in an environment where I can't be on the air--it's the next best
thing to operating!  I read QST in a variety of environments, many totally
incompatible with internet access.  As a contrast,  I usually approach the internet
with a goal in mind.  I use a search engine to find an answer or locate a
supplier--it's a whole different process.

My wife and daughters love to read Martha Stewart Magazine.  Do they actually make
any of that stuff?  Occasionally.  Do they go there to look for specific items or
find things to buy--hardly ever.  Do they enjoy and learn from it, definitely yes.
Do they buy things they see in the ads there?  I suspect so! Does it make them feel
good just to pick up the magazine and enjoy the process of reading it? Definitely!  I
read QST for all these same reasons; but, in addition, I read it because it has the
dual function of entertainment magazine and official journal of the ARRL.

One might conclude that the internet is replacing the printed page across the board.
The success of Amazon.com in selling books over the internet, and the number of
people patronizing Borders Books and Barnes & Noble to buy real books is an indicator
that paper has something special to offer.  Browsing through QST and seeing the
callsigns of friends is not the same as searching the internet for their calls.  So,
while it might make wonderful sense to put contest reports and sections news on the
internet, it might not be
equally advisable to take them out of print in QST.

The existence of the internet does have the potential to change the magazine
content.  The best example I have seen is the Ham Ads--clearly the timeliness and
access of the internet and packet clusters is MUCH more effective at handling
classified ads.  But let's not assume that publishing QST material on the web is the
answer to financial problems because it is cheaper than print.  While ARRL needs an
excellent website, there are important things it can do via QST to improve the growth
and quality of amateur radio that it cannot necessarily accomplish through the
internet. If we can make money on the magazine in the process of doing these things,
so much the better!

-Rol, K3RA

Additional thought:   I am not sure you should you couch the the  cutting  of the
director and SM listings and the board minutes as cutting YOUR coverage to  "be
fair".  Either this information should be published where the "casual reader" can
find it,  or it shouldn't.  All of this information is OURS--the membership's--which
includes you and the officers and BoD.

In addition, as I said in my previous response to Walt Simpson's letter, unless he
was just careless in his phraseology and is being misinterpreted, in his case there
may be an issue of whether the BoD is responsive to the membership.  He comes across
as being intent on managing the news rather than on putting the problem out to the
contesting and field organization communities to ask for their suggestions.   My
feeling is that prior exposure might have elicited some better ideas and certainly
more "buy-in" on the final solution.  The reaction to a "done deal"  would have been
much worse.  We need a dialogue, not "spin management"--the membership is too
sophisticated to go along with that approach--and the vote on this matter by the BoD
suggests that the majority of them would agree with me.

- K3RA

W5JBP at aol.com wrote:

> Thanks for putting me in the loop.
>
> I just want to point out that not only did we suggest that instead of putting the
> board minutes on the web to save pages, we also offered to only print pages 10 and
> 12 (directors and SM listings) once a quarter to save pages. We wanted to be fair.
>
> I know that this has become an emotional subject, but one has to look at the other
> side as well. The cost of paper to print QST is up, postage is up and going up
> again the middle of this year by 8%. Health insurance is out of sight (if you get
> it as a perk from your employer you are lucky) and going up even more. We have to
> face all of these issues as a prudent business man or in the future their may not
> be a League.
>
> Our thoughts were not to just "dump" contests but rather improve on the "soap box"
> part with more copy and photos. 99% of the contesters here in Dallas know pretty
> well how they did on Monday after the contest. By putting the results (line scores)
> on the ARRL web, you would get them 4 to 6 weeks faster.
>
> So, my thoughts in a brief moment.
>
> 73
>
> Jim Haynie, W5JBP
> President, ARRL


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com