‘Howlers’ such as the Jane’s Su-35/T-50 radar story are a symptom of the gradual departure from the scene of veteran reporters who individually had 20 or 30 years of defence reporting experience, and the absence of an new generation able to replace them. The experience level in many editorial offices has shrunk dramatically, and Jane’s may have been particularly hard hit.
Three of the aviation and defence journalists of my acquaintance have retired, two have semi-retired, three have moved to better-paying jobs in public-relations, and three have died. Salaries and payment rates (never exactly lavish in the past) are not high enough to attract good people to replace them, so the problem is likely to get worse.
At Le Bourget last year I heard much talk of an associated problem – shrinking advertising budgets at a shrinking number of defence companies. Thirty years ago the UK and French industries were big enough to support national promotional magazines, something that would be unthinkable today. With Aviation Week now a fortnightly title, Armed Forces Journal closed, and at least one other title known to be in difficulties, I fear we may be seeing the gradual collapse of traditional defence publishing.
This is not just happening in aviation and defence journalism. In an article I read recently, a former newspaper journalist described how having lost their experienced reporters, papers had hired “web-savvy newbies with little or no journalism experience” to take their place.
During my school days, it was a prestige to own even a magazine from Janes let alone something as big as “Janes All The Worlds Aircrafts”. Times really have changed.
Sign In
