To return to some points made by Plawolf in posting to myself a couple of days ago:
The point I was trying to make was that if I wanted advice on what digital camera to buy, the only opinions I’d seek would be those of professional users. I would ignore what the amateurs were saying at the camera club. The same goes for assessments of the defence data from Aviation Week, Forecast Associates, Jane’s, or Stratfor – it’s what the professional user thinks that counts. That is where those organisations get their income.
What that boils down to is, in the old world, only defence journalists had the chance to access designers, pilots etc and get information. So information flow was one way, regulated by the professional press.
In the new world, it is perfectly possible for a web forum to have a poster who is better connected to Chengdu than all the journalists in Janes put together.
The problem comes in telling that person from the 99 young Chinese kids inventing stuff or reposting rumours.
Reputation counts for a lot – so a user who has posted information that is later corroborated from other sources is worth paying attention to next time.
The best “old world” journalists are pefectly aware of this which is why many of them lurk in forums such as this on the lookout for such sources of information.
Now, when I look at Janes’ data, quite often I see errors. My feeling is that the quality of journalism at that company has eroded over time. However they were always perhaps the most conservative bunch, so that may be part of it.
Sign In
