Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

AOPA et al

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Flying mag, Flying "mags" and journalism

Timebuilder said:
It would be a good ethical step for the articles to make clear the nature of the relationship between the magazine and the advertiser, as in the case of Tab Express. It would be even better if the article at least alluded to the controversial nature of programs such as Tab's among the pilot population as a whole, and could further give the Tab representative a chance to answer typical criticisms of said programs.

To do so might add some of the credibility that Flying had back when I read it as a ten year old. Maybe too much has changed for that to happen.
(emphasis added)

Thanks, Mr. Time, that's exactly what I was driving at.

The advertiser, in effect, is paying for an article. In so doing, the magazine loses its credibility. Therefore, even if the article is indeed objective, its objectivity is compromised because it is known that paid advertising about the entity appears in the magazine. In other words, you don't, or had better not, see TV anchors serving as pitchmen/women.

TAB has been the subject of discussion, with most of that discussion being one-sided and anti. A TAB instructor has responded and has answered criticisms calmly and objectively. The instructor did not change my $0.02 opinion of the program, but his comments enabled me to see things TAB's way. Not exactly journalism, but all sides deserve to be presented.
 
Last edited:
I felt the same way: great to have the dialogue, but he didn't really change my mind about the impact on the market for professional pilots.
 
Hey!
Well, just my $.02 worth:
I really enjoy being involved in GA, and AOPA is a great organization. I have been a member since 2000, and love their magazine. It actually has interesting articles in it - very quality publication in my opinion.
We need someone like AOPA to watch out for us in GA. Ever been flying in Europe?? If you ever visit what they call a "flying club" over there you will be a AOPA member for life, I guarantee it. :eek:
One word: JOIN

Happy flying BTW ;) :cool:
 
Yeah, but when is the AOPA strike gonna be?

:) :) :)
 
It's a good magazine. The directory has been useful a coupla times.

You guys actually like that ugly hat?:eek: Wow.
 
There would be no general aviatiion today if not for the AOPA and EAA.

If it's not worth $40 a year to you to fly, then don't join AOPA. But don't bitch when the TSA bans GA from 100nm of all high school football games. Don't bitch when the FAA raises the medical standards to those required of astronauts. Don't bitch when you can't change anything on your Cessna 150 without paying a DER $5000 for the paperwork, only to have the FSDO sit on for a year and then disapprove it.

I get so sick of hearing pilots say things like "I ain't paying for Phil's Citation!".

If you fly GA aircraft and have that attitude, you are a fool. If AOPA doesn't defend GA, who will? Not you, you slack jawed idiot. "But AOPA's not perfect according to my standards!" you wail. OK, start your own national orgainization with access to most Congressmen, or shut up and send in your lousy $40.

Phil is a great salesman and lobbyist. We need him to be out there selling and defending GA. I think there are some Concordes in TAP, AOPA should buy one.

If you have to save a couple of bucks, don't buy Flying. They printed their last issue in 1979, and just recycle the same stuff over and over and over and over again.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top