Amateurish "New" RAF News
 

Anyone else think the new RAF News looks cheap and tacky? As to the content, a centre spread dedicated to "some aircrew drive a car" and a review of "My Name is Earl" do nothing to remedy the situation.

And the nail in the coffin.... I didn't know anyone pictured!

N Joe

It depends on whose car it is apparently!

F3 mates do it in style thread

And yet another pointless post by AIDU.:mad:

As far as the RAF News is concerned the latest edition was pretty awful, not only looking cheap and tatty but clearly having missed out a proof reader who can spell. I guess the move to High Wycombe has a lot to do with the problems, but the editorial/production team have got to make a lot of progress very quickly because on present form no-one will be prepared to pay 70p for such a poor publication.

What's new about it if it looks cheap and tacky?:E

Kitbag,

I suggest it's less to do with the move to HW, but more to do with a new team. Names like Adrian Rondel and Andrew Wise became synonymous with RAF News but alas no more with the move to HW. The new team will take understandable time to get up to speed, learn the nuances of reporting on/within the RAF and they need everyone's support to make it a success.

What irks is the fact that all the RAF News has said openly is "new team in place" with not so much as a brilliant well done or thank you for the previous team's earnest, sincere and professional eforts over several years. Gone ... and forgotten, just like that.

'Twas ever thus. (Which doesn't make it right)

I'd just like to second Epimetheus's comments re the previous team on RAF News; good guys who did a good job. I too thought the new issue was pretty poor, but it will be a naturally steep learning curve for the new team, who I'm sure will bed down quickly enough. I quite agree on lack of merit of the TV review column though!

As a journalist, I'd encourage N Joe and others to contact the team at RAF News to offer their constructive criticism or suggest news items for future issues; moaning about it here won't make for a better product! And yes, I will be continuing to subscribe.

RAF News - RAF Drinking Culture to be stamped out
 

So we have a military drinking culture that is going to be stepped on by senior officers...............have they all turned tee total, are we never to see a Sqn Cdr on the lash with his troops, Are dining in nights to be staid affairs where people cannot let their hair down within the military confines, and are the mess bill police going to start appearing. Not really the sort of thing that should be reported especially with some un-named airman telling how he got lashed up on ops.

Own goal we could do without:ugh:

Not impressed with the paper either, not very absobent and looks like a shady tabloid. Do we need the RAF News, why not let it go.

In my time some mug bought one and everyone scrounged a read of it.

The circulation versus readership ratio must have been sky high. Is it still the same?

I don't mind reading articles about the latest stuff (Reaper on-line etc), but it does get 'samey' after a while. You can only do so many articles about the same topics, with different people, and the obligatory 'new CO handshake' pic - I end up flicking through it pretty quickly.

War articles and all that goes with them, however, deserve the full treatment. Respect to all who feature in them.

I hope the new team take a look at Soldier magazine to get some fresh ideas.

Hear hear, Epimetheus.

Sprucemoose - accept your sentiment but providing constructive advice is much harder than posting a quick online whinge.

N Joe

Gone and forgotten just like that....wouldn't the service line management of the previous staff expressed their apppreciation- or is that just alittle old-fashioned? :rolleyes:

Had some dealings with former RAF News staff members Terry Palin and Steve Moore - gentlemen both.

New Title?
 

With the RAF's strength currently hovering around the 41000 mark and the Air Cadet strength at 46000, shouldn't we change the name to Air Cadet News and have an RAF page in it? :p

Not impressed
 

I managed to take a look at a copy today and it reminded me of that other 'new' paper of the 90's which died pretty quickly 'The Today'. That too made too much use of fancy colour photo's that were out of focus or too glossy looking. I don't mind the modernistic approach but like some have said it just doesn't feel right.

I also agree that the layout does seem a tad amateurish and that some of the articles are not what we are used to. However, as the saying goes now - 'if you don't like the journey get off the train' and my train stops at the shelf just above the one where the RAF news is placed in my local newsagent.

SaddamsLC I agree entirely - an own goal that we could really do without, particularly as it comes in the same issue that reports the unfortunate incident prior to the Timberlake concert and the potential for a CM as well! or perhaps that was the big plan? Drink too much and you are screwed. I would have thought an internal briefing note or one of those nice little glossy, and no doubt expensive, pamphlets that I'm getting so many of would have got the message across better?


SA

I find that RAF Active magazine far more annoying. Packed full of articles on 'sailing in the caribbean' 'snowboarding in the Rockies' 'Kayakking around Hawaii' etc etc. Just what you need as you deploy to the sandpit for the second/third/fourth time in a year.

For some reason, all the participants seem to be officers in staff jobs, with a token SAC thrown in to provide balance/drive the wheels (delete as applicable.

This is a thread for people who can read Sanchez!

You look at pictures on EGOAT. Where is the latest copy of active though?

:hmm:Which is exactly what the magazine is for - sports and adventurous training.

I'll start by stating I have no experience of publishing. However, I am currently at a location which for some reason appears to be on the dist list for just about every publication printed by the RAF (inc Stn mags, RAFA, Aux, etc). I am continually puzzled as to how these high quality (paper and ink, not journalism) glossies can possibly be financially viable. I accept there is a degree of advertising revenue, indeed many mags contain little more. Taking RAF Active as an example. Given the small percentage of the 41,000 that have real access to the the less hostile forms of military camping portrayed therein, it hardly justifies such a grand publication surley.

Thread creep I know, but as far as Active is concerned I think it is a good mag. If I found the content annoying, personally I would not pick it up - there are more important things to be annoyed about. I have never understood the negative attitude of some people towards adventurous trg. When I am on ops, I cant do AT simple as that and good luck to those that have to oportunity to do it. When i am NOT on ops I try and make it happen - if my job allows then fine, if it doesnt, too bad try again another time. It all smacks of this attitude of 'if you are not on ops you are slacking' - an insulting generalisation in my view.

Rant immediate action drills complete.

Spectre

If that was for me.

My point was (though undoubtedly badly made) that given the relatively low potential readership I question the commercial viability of such mags. I used 'Active' as an example, but there's hundreds of glossies every month.

As an aside, the previously mentioned Soldier magazine is undoubtedly one of the best of them.