Has 'Boosterism' Become Rampant in Sailing Media?

[sailorboy1]

[QUOTE=noelex 77;1533633]

The only advantage of magazines is that they can be downloaded and subsequently read when out of internet range.

/QUOTE]

The real advantage of a magazine is that it is easier to read while using the head than a laptop!

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by Chark

There is nothing inherently wrong with boosterism....

One word answer: Windhunter

(That's the scumbags described in Peter Forthmann's piece, linked to above, whose Marketing Manager weaselled an informercial into Yachting Monthly under the guise of an impartial review, with the result that many many hundreds of people lost roughly $5000 dollars each on equipment which was inoperable.

The reason this single article was so influential was because Windhunter's legal team bullied every subsequent adverse report out of publication and off the www, and continued their own highly effectual boosterism.

The Editor-in-Chief of Yachting Monthly lost his career,

and Peter almost lost his company for doing the right thing and standing his ground virtually alone against Windpilot, whose legal abilities were prodigious, in stark contrast to their inability to provide a workable product.

Advice to anyone wanting to get the gist of Peter's article, linked to in post 55: skip the first 10 paragraphs or so, and start reading at "So what really happened?")

[Pelagic]

I think we have bigger problems with our addiction to social media

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7dLU6fk9QY

This Is A Video EVERYONE Needs To See. For The First Time In My Life, I'm Speechless.

“This media we call social is anything but, when we open our computers and it’s our doors we shut”… This is one of the most vital messages that everyone needs to hear.

Look Up*is a spoken word for the “online” generation. Written, performed and directed by Gary Turk, it is an extremely important life lesson for our youth. *Children are growing up in a world where they don’t play outside or communicate with their friends. It seems today everything is done via text message or over the internet. It’s heartbreaking… I feel guilty myself. We need to spread this message before it’s too late

[Snore]

[QUOTE=sailorboy1;1534208]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

The only advantage of magazines is that they can be downloaded and subsequently read when out of internet range.

/QUOTE]

The real advantage of a magazine is that it is easier to read while using the head than a laptop!

If it wasn't for the glossy finish they could have another use!

Just say'n

[robert sailor]

Andrew, My bias is towards fin keel stick built boats (boats built without complete hull liners) and a partial skeg hung rudder. Rig with double lowers to avoid the big swept back spreaders and a solent stay. The ability to sail decent in light air is important because that's what you get offshore often.

I met Jimmy Cornell years ago and shared an afternoon and evening of BS and had a good tour of his boat as he was returning from the Antarctic. I was twisting my mind about ballast laying in the hull rather than in a deeper keel and a low righting moment but the concept of having no keel to trip over, especially when flying a chute really intrigued me. He said it was dead easy to fly the chute in higher winds because the boat just slithered around like a saucer. It was after that that I started to open my mind to completely different concepts. Anyways long story to say that I do like some of the French aluminum boats.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

Interesting case study.

Magazines who knew a product was toxic, yet their hands were tied by threats of legal process

Clearly the author has a stake, but even if it was exaggerated, (and I'm not saying it is) it would be sobering.

A singlehanders fight | Windpilot Blog

Very interesting case and probably not much exaggeration. Now, one thing I do know. Filing cases for libel are much less likely to be successful in the US than in the UK or Europe in general. Meeting the burden of proof is more difficult. While the laws do vary by state, the first amendment gives a lot of protection. The plaintiff must prove the statement was false first and foremost as truth is always a defense. Then they must prove it caused harm. Last they must prove that either the publisher knew it was false or failed to take reasonable steps to research it. This is just when an ordinary person claims libel. When it is someone in the public eye or a political official the proof requires more. Then they must prove it was done to cause harm and in reckless disregard for the truth, proving malice.

There are very few successful libel cases in the US. When it includes comments on a public site or letters to an editor or things of that sort then the publisher has even more protection. It must be proven then that the publisher published them knowing they were false and the publisher did it with the intent of causing harm.

Needless to say, this case would not have even approached being a decent case for libel in the US. Again very few are. Occasionally you have a celebrity suing a tabloid over something outrageous and defamatory and only occasionally do they win. Even then they have to prove the real damages. For instance if no one believes the libelous story then there's really minimal damage. That's the old case of Jane told my mom this. Mom, did you believe it when she told you. No. End of case. Weren't harmed with mom by Jane because mom didn't believe it.

I feel bad for our counterparts across the pond. This is one area our laws are more protective of the press. There are many others. Freedom of the Press is huge, probably too free sometimes. But not so short sighted as to make one fearful to publish information they've verified just because someone won't like it. Advertising dollars impact but fear of libel is quite small. The rule of editors generally is did you verify your facts, do you have a second source. If so. Covered. Publish it.

[Stu Jackson]

Andrew, thanks for that link.

I particularly liked one phrase before the first ten paragraphs were over:

:...or evidence of this look no further than the reactions tabloid headlines often manage to stir up among the hard of thinking..."

A great replacement phrase for ignorance.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

reactions tabloid headlines often manage to stir up among
.

Oh and that's one that really bothers me about all media. Headlines. Teases on TV. And stories titled in such a way far different from their content, just to make it spectacular.

Tease: Winter weather over the weekend. Is snow on the way? Find out how much on the 10 pm weather.

Actual: It's going to get cooler and there is an outside chance we could get a little freezing rain, but it's not likely.

In the newspaper and magazine world, the writer of the story often does not write the headline. Sometimes doesn't even see it until its printed.

[bornyesterday]

"This is one area our laws are more protective of the press. There are many others. Freedom of the Press is huge, probably too free sometimes. But not so short sighted as to make one fearful to publish information they've verified just because someone won't like it. Advertising dollars impact but fear of libel is quite small. The rule of editors generally is did you verify your facts, do you have a second source. If so. Covered. Publish it."

Did any US magazines publish the truth about this company? If not, why not?

Whoopeee! one of my favourite numbers...

[S/V Alchemy]

I wrote about this last year when I found a 1994 Cruising World that had been chucked:

The world encompassed: Looks great, less filling

The short form is that advertising revenue and the preservation of same have largely become the raison d'etre of publishing. I speak as a former magazine publisher from the same years as when this CW I cited came out.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

I wrote about this last year when I found a 1994 Cruising World that had been chucked:

The world encompassed: Looks great, less filling

The short form is that advertising revenue and the preservation of same have largely become the raison d'etre of publishing. I speak as a former magazine publisher from the same years as when this CW I cited came out.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by bornyesterday

Did any US magazines publish the truth about this company? If not, why not?

Whoopeee! one of my favourite numbers...

Practical Sailor did report on the entire situation. As to US magazines publishing earlier information, this wasn't their battle. The article that started all this wasn't in the US. So their only real involvement was to report on what had happened.

Would a US magazine publish something attacking a vendor? Very very seldom. But not for fear of libel. Instead, fear of losing present or future advertisement.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

I wrote about this last year when I found a 1994 Cruising World that had been chucked:

The world encompassed: Looks great, less filling

The short form is that advertising revenue and the preservation of same have largely become the raison d'etre of publishing. I speak as a former magazine publisher from the same years as when this CW I cited came out.

all you are seeing is the death throes of the print medium.


dave

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

all you are seeing is the death throes of the print medium.


dave

Why do you think I'm a former publisher?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

Why do you think I'm a former publisher?

tell me about it, I have a daughter who is a print journalist. She says she can see it dying around her.


dave