Mags We Read

[2manylures]

Magazines, Newspapers, TV, Radio & associated individuals are accountable to the public.

Misconstruing the truth is deceitful & fraudulent hence failing miserably in the credibility stakes.

Those who believe they have the nous to contribute to the media should at least have enough nous to be upright & honourable.

It really is as simple as that!

[Dick Pasfield]

Regardless of remuneration ....... Contributors / writers / journalists need to step up to the plate & show some integrity in their articles . I don't know about you , but I don't buy fishing publications for fictional reading .

...........and nor do I. So, those magazines stay on the shelf. They're easy to pick, if the consumer makes enough fuss about it word spreads, people get to know and the editor will have no choice to do something about falling circulation.

I'll guarantee the publication that's been referred to here will register an upward spike in sales next print as a result of word getting around and people wanting to see the outcome. What happens to circulation then would be interesting to track.

Regarding contributors stepping up to the plate, people need to realise that a percentage are already there be they part time writers or professionals . What that percentage is on the East Coast is I'm not sure of as my interest is West Coast/Northern Australia but non the less generalising without qualification tends to lump everyone into the same basket. I'm sure most agree that's not right.

With the means of gaining information cheaply, by that I mean reading/watching it from home as opposed the learning it on the paddock becoming more numerous strategies have been developed by those who share information across those mediums on how it's disseminated.

If you took an example of someone using the internet, DVDs magazines and books to give information, the good oil is never given up cheaply. You need to read the book or watch the DVD for that. Magazines may sit one level below but are placed well above the internet that is mainly dedicated to publicising.

'Cut and pastes' appearing in internet posts that have come from recent magazine and book publications are pretty common in my experience. One could assume by that good writers are still sought after by the public as a means to further their knowledge.

[darylive]

Keechie..do you ever read the Courier Mail...most pics are doctored..or old pics from the files. It is nothing new nor anything to worry about...Oh I get it..people just buy the mags for the pics..sorry..i thought some may buy for the articles (at least thats what I always told the wife when I bought Playboy)

Don't believe everything in the courier mail! (fish scale rulers)

Just a couple of comments-

Using an old photo is fine provided it's in context with the text i.e. used to demonstrate some particular circumstance ("see how this fish took the lure"), about a particular point in time or to demonstrate some other aspect that of fishing not related to a particular trip or time frame.

Photographing a fish more than once in a number of poses and is a good habit to get into, better to put one fish through the extra stress rather than all the fish you catch. Sometimes the extra shock of pulling a fish aboard for the photo can make a difference to its survival, reduce that risk.

As the photographer I'll often hand a fish of mine to someone else for me to photo if I'm after something particular in that shot, head shot, lure positioning etc. The quicker the shot is got the better.

Have one from memory of my shots altered to remove a bit of blood, magazine policy.

My point is that pictures can be used a number of ways to enhance a story or tell one of their own and with live fish as the resource limiting a picture or fish to only one story bounded by a particular time frame can is a bit wasteful, at least as I see it. Just never allow a picture to lie because it's your reputation on the line.

Similar shots, photographer's biggest bane, the shot has to be quick, there's only so many ways you can hold a fish that's acceptable to put into print weather/light is often an issue. The good ones keep trying.

As for the text, its up the the editor to draw the line on that one, if they accept sh1t, sh1t will be submitted

PS Don't see it often see it love love when you see a few shots supposedly of a one day and someones clothes change, or their hair gets longer or shorter

PPS How you caption your photo is the critical part.

Using archival photos for reference is fine if the purpose is to explain or demonstrate something not claim it is a recent catch.

theres a difference between blacking out a back ground to keep a spot unknown, then copying someones elses fish and putting yourself in the pic.

by the way looking back at some old pics i dont know if its just me but it looks a bit suss i think near the stomach of fish and near fingers and angle what are your thoughts i might be wrong.
U can see his white shirt collar through top of the fishes back.

You don't need to be a photographic expert to see that one is doctored. The fish has been copied, pasted on a layer (of less than %100 opaque) and enlarged.

Cropping backgrounds etc is nothing. Mag covers would be difficult without that option. Removing blood is nothing, flipping the pic for editorial preference nothing, taking out flare to improve the image, no problem. Corrections are done to most images for contrast, balance, lighting etc. These are photographic corrections not a distortion by definition. This was always done long before the digital age.

Changing the content of a photograph, is a distortion can be interpreted as misleading. Any such change should be declared if it is reasonable to presume the observer will believe the photograph:
'is an accurate representation of that which it purports to represent'.

I haven't seen the images and claim no alliance with those involved but the original angler could be rightly disappointed and ask at least for recognition of his catch. Clearly the fish was credit worthy or why would this have been done?

If the purpose of the image was to demonstrate what can be caught on a particular bait why would it be necessary to change the image by removing the original angler and inputting another thus creating the impression some one else caught the fish and depriving the true angler of credit for the catch.

Phil thanks for your credibility, clearly the issue has stirred some emotion and it is good to get the correct version of events.

-oOo-

As for Mags: Well as Chris points out what's new to discuss every month? They it still beat the Women s Mags etc. Trip reports are fine but yes we do want to know what worked and what didn't. Personally I pick up Bush & Beach if I see it around, it is a well priced rag for the content.

I do get disappointed with the over priced ones that are just full of glossy promos for things I can't have, a bit like Playboy etc.

[lippa]

regardless of what's happening , bush and beach is the best fishing publication for Queenslanders, by far.

I for one will continue my subscriptions.

enjoy the rag

lippa

[Lucky_Phill]

Well, I have had 24 hours to take a breath.

Last word.

The problem that arose was an article in a fishing magazine. The person who wrote that article has admitted, to me and a few others, that a serious error in judgement was made. He is embarrased about this. Ausfish is NOT the place for him to make an apology. If he feels he should, that is up to him.

Any public apology will be done in the Fishing magazine in question, and rightly so. That is where the problem occured and that is where the explanation should be made.

I am sure the editor will also have something to say to the readers and subscription holders.




IMO, I hope Webby doesn't fall on his sword for this. He has given so much over the years, it would be a shame for him to discontinue. I really think this incident needs to be put into perspective and look really hard at what damage has been done and to whom.

Cheers Phill


.
.
. ><> ><> ><> ><>..... ><::>

[Lockie]

Now this is an interesting topic because I worked in the printing industry for awhile.
I know first hand that articles can be written 2-3months before hitting the news stands. what makes it worse is when you read the articles, you find you are reading about fishing reports and catches made after the publishing date. Maybe they have a crystal ball or something. Makes you wonder!
eg. I read about the December fishing and conditions in.......wait for it.......end of October. Needless to say I don't buy mags anymore.
Sobering thought. Can't mention the mag in question as I still have interests in the industry.......blokes got to eat ya know!
regards
Lockie

[Obi _ Wan]

Many many years ago when i was just a teenager a bloke told me, "Don't believe any thing you read and only half of what you see"

Over the years i've found that advice to be very close to the mark, once i was interviewed by a newspaper reporter and what he wrote was nothing like the storey, probably not sensational enough, it really anoyed me at the time. I have seen articles in mags about a form of fishing in Sydney Harbour and the pictures for the article were of well known areas in the Brisbane River.

Another example, how many of you have heard of the two shirt fish?????
Just last year on a Northern Barra Impoundment two chaps were trolling and one of them caught a barra about a meter long. Well what happened then still makes me laugh, they each had their photo's taken with the same fish, then they moved the boat to get a different background, they each changed their shirts and had the photo's taken again. Perhaps their tackle bags were full of different shirts?

So i reckon that that fish was what they call a four shirt fish!!!

It dosen't concern me but they have got to be kidding, i reckon they are only fooling themselves.

My feeling on the subject is, if i didn't catch it, there's no way i want to be photgraphed with that fish, i did not earn the right.

I have seen the same fish photo in mags a number of times over the years, some of the fish as Lyndon said are years old.

Cheers,
John.

[Greg P]

The only bit I struggle with is why it needed to be done. Webby has caught all there is to be caught out there. If it wasn't him then some sub-editor needs a swift kick up the ass cause it puts Webby in a bad light atm. I still prefer to read Webby's stuff than the walking/fishing advert who just got the zuke engine

[Obi _ Wan]

The only bit I struggle with is why it needed to be done. Webby has caught all there is to be caught out there. If it wasn't him then some sub-editor needs a swift kick up the ass cause it puts Webby in a bad light atm. I still prefer to read Webby's stuff than the walking/fishing advert who just got the zuke engine

Greg, I agree with you about Webby, although i don't know him personally, i have see and heard him at shows many times, read many of his articles which are very good.
I believe that Webby is not the type to pull something like that, after all he dosen't need to, he has been there and done it all and probably forgotten more than most will ever know.

Cheers,
John.

[NAGG]

Greg, I agree with you about Webby, although i don't know him personally, i have see and heard him at shows many times, read many of his articles which are very good.
I believe that Webby is not the type to pull something like that, after all he dosen't need to, he has been there and done it all and probably forgotten more than most will ever know.

Cheers,
John.

Thats not how it reads John ..... & Lucky Phills last response seems to confirm that.
If it was done by a sub editor , Then the author should have jumped up & down to have the photo pulled.
One way or another ..... a magazine , a writer & probably an editor have had their credibility tarnished & someone does need to fall on their sword over this ...... Particularly since people pay for the publication in question.
- IMO Its more than just a little error in judgement ...... Sure ,maybe not a great deal harm has been done in the greater scheme of things ...... depending on your prospective.
Finally - I'm with Greg P - Why was it done

Chris

[Dick Pasfield]

Many many years ago when i was just a teenager a bloke told me, "Don't believe any thing you read and only half of what you see"

Great twentieth century philosopher Lou Reed 'Last Great American Whale'

[finding_time]

Thats not how it reads John ..... & Lucky Phills last response seems to confirm that.
If it was done by a sub editor , Then the author should have jumped up & down to have the photo pulled.
One way or another ..... a magazine , a writer & probably an editor have had their credibility tarnished & someone does need to fall on their sword over this ...... Particularly since people pay for the publication in question.
- IMO Its more than just a little error in judgement ...... Sure ,maybe not a great deal harm has been done in the greater scheme of things ...... depending on your prospective.
Finally - I'm with Greg P - Why was it done

Chris

I'm sure it's going to be explained Chris and Greg but as Phill has stated the proper place to print that is BnB as that's where the so called crime occured!! I think Court Ausfish will have to wait!

[alphas]

Boys, make this simple for me, OK.
Last nite I was on Ausfish and there was a post with 2 pics of what appeared to be the same estuary cod, held up by 2 differant fishos.
One pic was of a bloke I dont know, the other pic was of a Ausfish member and article writer for BnB magazine, holding a cod.
This post was deleted in the short time I was tying to decipher the pics.
Who caught the fish, who is full of crap???? Who's reputation is now worth about 20 cents? I dont care either way, but some one is lieing, simple, yeah?

Easy question, lets not delete the post or thread please mods.

Lucky Phils reply confirms whom was at fault...

Quote"What a jew bait can catch(fish was released)"
Hope the shot was all worth it

[Tropicaltrout]

Phil Lock the topic I started the thread so I reckon it should end here. We all have read it by now, we all has a say now if there is any more another thread can be added when the next issue is completed with the apology or explanation what ever. I hope Webby can post something on here just for what its worth....


Nath

[Lucky_Phill]

Thread locked by the Topic Starters request.


Phill
.
.
.