Perhaps there is a space for a 'Top Gear' type faux-anarchic flying mag format but one written by some good creative journos.
TG was, in the 1980s, a fairly serious "what car" programme, but today it is a complete farce, with zero informational value.
I suppose the age profile of the flying / enthusiast reader-base (we are all getting to be a high-timer demographic) would oppose the likes of Clarkson although May is a potential flying author.
Actually I suspect a large % of the readership are spotters, and people who don't fly anymore.
The advert-funded mags cannot afford to be controversial.
I recall, from the 1970s, when Bike Magazine slagged off the then new Honda Gold Wing (rightly so) Honda pulled all their advertising for a whole year. They came back eventually but only because Bike was the biggest mag of them all.
The US "Flying" mag takes this to its ultimate conclusion, with a shoe-licking review of everything. The value for decisionmaking is essentially nil.
Sadly the wold of words gets worse as people indisciminately tweet and the like, because if you reduce any statement to 140 letters it will be banal; then the danger is that nothing becomes worth reading.
The price of the "smartphone" is that much writing has become banal. The "convergence" of communication devices, made possible by the smartphone, has resulted in a lot of people using a smartphone for
all their comms, so all their comms is basically banal rubbish, except for the few who have time on their hands to type up meaningful stuff on the crappy little keyboards.
That's why I don't have a smartphone. When I need to type up something detailed, it is never urgently needed.
BTW when you wrote Tw**t, the software replaced it with pprune. No idea why PP does this.