Top Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the printed venue dead?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by dewman View Post
    LET US BE HONEST FELLAS! This whole up and coming generation can barely read anyway! Gave up on spelling and writing years ago. On line learning will finish them off. Seriously, think about this. Aren't emojis just modern "cave art" anyway?🤔🤔. 😳. 😮. ☹️


    Click image for larger version

Name:	2A549E08-9935-4C5A-90F7-1ECF51346E99.jpeg
Views:	86
Size:	183.5 KB
ID:	769998

    👍

    Comment


    • #17
      Isn't it great that the last issue celebrates 125 of stories and adventure while speculating what the future holds for the magazine?

      Comment


      • #18
        There once was an occupation called "proofreader," who was employed to correct typos and misspellings in printed material. No more.
        The standards are declining in quality of content as well.

        Comment


        • #19
          One month's issue from the 70s, 80s, and even '90s has more to read than a year's worth now. No exaggeration. Each and every single month, more words than what you get now in a full year (or three). Well-written words, too: Look at the names on the masthead in, say, 1982. No way anyone can say it was just a lot of filler.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by MattM37 View Post
            One month's issue from the 70s, 80s, and even '90s has more to read than a year's worth now. No exaggeration. Each and every single month, more words than what you get now in a full year (or three). Well-written words, too: Look at the names on the masthead in, say, 1982. No way anyone can say it was just a lot of filler.
            Preachin' to the choir, brother. The classiics they reprinted showed how sad it's gotten. Tried to live on reputation, showed how bad it's become.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by MattM37 View Post
              One month's issue from the 70s, 80s, and even '90s has more to read than a year's worth now. No exaggeration. Each and every single month, more words than what you get now in a full year (or three). Well-written words, too: Look at the names on the masthead in, say, 1982. No way anyone can say it was just a lot of filler.

              Don’t take this the wrong way as I’m just throwing it out there, but given the choice would you give up the internet to go back to what magazines were?

              Honestly I’m not sure which is the bigger reason why I’ve about given up on printed materials. Other than F&S, if it’s actually still being published, the only things that I still get in the mail are American Hunter from my NRA membership and NY Outdoor News from being a NY Hunter Ed instructor. Partly because of a lack of features and also due to being online more than I should. Thing is it’s not just written media, we had stopped watching TV to the point we dropped cable last year as well. We did pick up a couple cheaper alternatives but I hardly ever sit in front of a television set anymore. That’s not a bad thing.

              When you consider most hunting these days revolves around whitetail deer from stands it’s not surprising stories are lacking. Same reason I burned out on hunting shows. Is what it is I guess.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by fitch270 View Post


                Don’t take this the wrong way as I’m just throwing it out there, but given the choice would you give up the internet to go back to what magazines were?

                Honestly I’m not sure which is the bigger reason why I’ve about given up on printed materials. Other than F&S, if it’s actually still being published, the only things that I still get in the mail are American Hunter from my NRA membership and NY Outdoor News from being a NY Hunter Ed instructor. Partly because of a lack of features and also due to being online more than I should. Thing is it’s not just written media, we had stopped watching TV to the point we dropped cable last year as well. We did pick up a couple cheaper alternatives but I hardly ever sit in front of a television set anymore. That’s not a bad thing.

                When you consider most hunting these days revolves around whitetail deer from stands it’s not surprising stories are lacking. Same reason I burned out on hunting shows. Is what it is I guess.

                If this forum weren't in the mix, the answer would be an instant and absolute yes. I don't think the internet has given us half of what it's taken away. And its added a lot of stuff we were better off without -- in general, and also within FS and OL.

                Fact is, I don't take much personally, but with the few things that I do, I maybe over-compensate. Through my teens, twenties, and thirties, those outdoor writers and writings were seriously the things I enjoyed most in life, other than the fishing and hunting themselves. It maybe isn't so much of an internet issue, as it's just simply that something I liked so much is gone.

                Good thing is, I can still read all those golden oldie stuff, with the old issues I own plus Google books, etc, so I should quit griping. I just miss those good, daily stuff-of-life things that the internet has done away with. Funny, I think it was one of those old-time Field and Stream writers (probably Gene Hill) who actually mentions in one of his essays the simple pleasures of reading through an old-timey catalog, picking out the stuff you liked, filling out the little card, writing out your check, and carrying it out to your mailbox and putting the flag up for the mailman .... that sort of thing. Traditionalist, curmudgeon before my time, whatever anyone wants to call me ... okay, no argument here.

                One other thing, though -- I think FS and OL did actually hit a very good balance between the magazine and website, back there in 2012, 13, maybe 14? And look at all the users they had -- posting comments after articles and using the answers section. I remember the printed magazines had gotten somewhat skimpy, but they were still putting out something worth the cover price, at least, with some good special issues a couple times each year. So, that at least shows that it can be done.

                Last edited by MattM37; 04-06-2021, 05:09 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by MattM37 View Post


                  If this forum weren't in the mix, the answer would be an instant and absolute yes. I don't think the internet has given us half of what it's taken away. And its added a lot of stuff we were better off without -- in general, and also within FS and OL.

                  Fact is, I don't take much personally, but with the few things that I do, I maybe over-compensate. Through my teens, twenties, and thirties, those outdoor writers and writings were seriously the things I enjoyed most in life, other than the fishing and hunting themselves. It maybe isn't so much of an internet issue, as it's just simply that something I liked so much is gone.

                  Good thing is, I can still read all those golden oldie stuff, with the old issues I own plus Google books, etc, so I should quit griping. I just miss those good, daily stuff-of-life things that the internet has done away with. Funny, I think it was one of those old-time Field and Stream writers (probably Gene Hill) who actually mentions in one of his essays the simple pleasures of reading through an old-timey catalog, picking out the stuff you liked, filling out the little card, writing out your check, and carrying it out to your mailbox and putting the flag up for the mailman .... that sort of thing. Traditionalist, curmudgeon before my time, whatever anyone wants to call me ... okay, no argument here.

                  One other thing, though -- I think FS and OL did actually hit a very good balance between the magazine and website, back there in 2012, 13, maybe 14? And look at all the users they had -- posting comments after articles and using the answers section. I remember the printed magazines had gotten somewhat skimpy, but they were still putting out something worth the cover price, at least, with some good special issues a couple times each year. So, that at least shows that it can be done.
                  That’s what I expected, but what really strikes me is your observation of the 2012-2014 timeframe and the heyday of the website. It seems to me up until then smartphones probably weren’t the main source of traffic on the site. Checking in meant having to sit down at home rather than having access in your pocket. Of course I’m in the sticks so we were probably a bit behind, especially in cell coverage which is still spotty.

                  When you consider all the other entertainment options online now its no wonder these forums are already slipping like the magazines. Thing is I’m not sure if it’s the net itself to blame or the almost constant availability that’s the bigger issue.

                  Comment

                  Welcome!

                  Collapse

                  Welcome to Field and Streams's Answers section. Here you will find hunting, fishing, and survival tips from the editors of Field and Stream, as well as recommendations from readers like yourself.

                  If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ for information on posting and navigating the forums.

                  And don't forget to check out the latest reviews on guns and outdoor gear on fieldandstream.com.

                  Right Rail 1

                  Collapse

                  Top Active Users

                  Collapse

                  There are no top active users.

                  Right Rail 2

                  Collapse

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Right Rail 3

                  Collapse

                  Footer Ad

                  Collapse
                  Working...
                  X