[CQ-Contest] what else is lost

Charles Harpole hs0zcw at gmail.com
Sat Feb 1 10:02:18 EST 2014

I am happy, like everyone, to see that CQ style contests may continue.
Congrats to the heavy hitters listed on the web site.

BUT, more is lost with the demise of CQ Magazine than contesting:
-alternative voice and view to QST....   just like the TWO newspapers in
cities of old, ham radio benefits from multiple voices... none of which
need be distinctively contending but plurality of ideas, contra web site
censorship, is good for the health of the hobby.

-cohesion and shared experiences and purposes... A group holds together via
shared experiences (the way squads of soldiers are trained) and shared
solving of troubles.  A real tangible magazine can help lots.  A real
magazine is under pressure to offer good, useful, entertaining and
promotional articles;  its goal is to include ideas, not exclude, and sell
to a broad readership.  That is not so true of narrow-topic and closely
censored web sites which live by servicing only those IN the IN group.  A
system that avoids lively debate and diversity will die.

I feel so sorry for those writing here who don't see the value of
continuing these services and simply wish to discard anything the market is
too weak to fully support.  I see no other substitute that will come onto
the Web;  instead there will be even more insular sites, happily
reinforcing each others' opinions while condemning and excluding any
reasoned alternatives.

A civilized society subsidizes the arts, for example, for good reasons.  I
see only good resulting from a subsidized CQ Magazine to help keep vibrant
life in this aging hobby.
Charly, HS0ZCW

ps, there is also a loss of competition among vendors of equipment when the
advertisements do not appear side by side in a magazine.

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list