[CQ-Contest] what else is lost

[David Gilbert]

Things work exactly the opposite, Charlie.  I can't think of a single 
example where a distributed medium (which the internet is) results in 
less diversity than does a centrally managed one.

The folks here on this reflector aren't the ones "discarding" CQ 
Magazine ... its subscribers and advertisers (apparently) are.  The hard 
fact is that CQ Magazine is no longer "vibrant" in the least (QST is 
even less so), and for the most part neither is the hobby it serves.  
Print media in general costs more than the relative value of the content 
it provides compared with other alternatives, and you might as well 
lament the passing of door-to-door milkmen or video rental shops.

Besides, there have been countless ham radio businesses that have 
disappeared in the last couple of decades and I didn't see anyone 
willing to subsidize them to keep them alive.  I don't see any reason 
why a magazine should be any different.

Dave   AB7E



On 2/1/2014 8:02 AM, Charles Harpole wrote:
> 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.
> 73,