Contest Reporting (in "Soaring" mag)

WARNIMG: Longish, U.S.-centric post below!!!

OK - It's winter (again, sigh) in my neck of the woods and some recent RAS
posts touching upon contests and the (over-)reporting thereof in "Soaring"
magazine, plus a kinda-sorta related post from "Soaring's" newish-editor, move
me to muse a bit, here on RAS...

The closest I've been to a "real contest" was crewing at the 2013 combined
Super Regionals and 1-26 Championships in Moriarty, NM (thanks, Tony!); that's
since getting into soaring in late '72. Point being, I'm not a contest pilot,
and have never - seriously - considered becoming one. Yet, topically, the two
most compelling magazine subjects of interest to me upon discovering the sport
and magazine we contest reporting (specifically Nationals) and record
flight writeups. The listing order is meaningless; I inhaled all such
writeups. I also inhaled writeups of unsuccessful record attempts, as well as
writeups of "merely personally good flights," especially those from people
more experienced than I. Why? They were all inspirations for possible personal
future achievements, if I just kept plugging away at building my skill set. I
recognized early-on that were I successful in skills-building, then the
proportion of pilots ahead of me on the skills curve would lessen over
time...but so what? Inspiration is inspiration!

I can further recall when I first saw member-grousing about contest reports in
the magazine. Somewhat to my surprise, by then I (somewhat) agreed with those
writers' perspectives....but NOT for the reasons commonly expressed, which
I'll lump as "too much contest reporting; contests are
meaningless/of-no-interest-to-me/weekend-soaring pilots who constitute the
vast majority of SSA members." What bothered *me* about main-feature-article
contest reporting in the magazine as it evolved from (say) 1965 (back issues,
woo hoo!) through 1985 was a trend away from "you are there" reporting to a
"merely recounting of daily facts" style. What tended to drive that change is
perhaps worthy of its own discussion, but its reality was - and remains, for
the most part (with a few, notable/welcomed-by-me exceptions) - very real.

In short, nationals contest reporting went from the very-interesting
(factually-driven) "telling of stories," to dry-as-dust, Sg't. Joe Friday,
"Just the facts, Ma'am," summarizing. A recipe for more-boring reading is hard
for me to imagine...and I'm a "naturally *interested*" reader! (I write the
"boring reading" bit as a retired engineer - we stereotypically *love* reading
"dry stuff!")

My guess is that even if SSA's membership ratio of contest to non-contest
pilots had been flipped - i.e. if 95% of SSA members flew contests, vs. the
oft-referenced 5% - for all these years, the latter style of reporting
would've, by itself, induced historic reality's complaint rate. BUT instead of
the complaint typically being, "too much contest reporting in the
magazine/boring/of-no-interest-to-Joe-Average-Member!"...it would have been
"boring/lousy contest reporting!"

People's "current interests" vary wildly (duh) and change over time, so
there's no seriously imaginable way any "Soaring" editor could possibly meet
every member's expectations all the time, even were ye Editor blessed with
unlimited selection of beautifully-written articles on every topic of genuine
interest to some membership group. I imagine every "Soaring" editor has sought
to lay out every issue with well-written articles of genuine interest to
identifiable segments of readers as he imagines that readership to be. I
further imagine ye Editor strives for "topical balance" as best it can be
sensed (maybe even quantified via column inches), given the seasonal nature of
our sport.

I *hope* ye Editor gives, even if only occasionally, serious thought to the
nature of some of the sport's "seasonally repetitive" reporting (e.g. contest
reporting) and cogitates on how it might be structured to minimize the
"repetitive bits,"...and then "somehow" seeks to inspire his potential scribes
by conveying some sense of what it is he'd wish to receive in his perfect
world...as distinct from merely hoping it will magically appear "over the
transom."

Whatever ye Editor's actual thoughts on this matter, my guess/sense of the
link down the years between editorial thinking as it's influenced the
magazine's all-volunteer authors is, it has ranged from nearly-non-existent,
through tenuous, to very real, depending upon ye Editor. Regardless, our
wonderful (in my view) magazine has always been critically dependent on those
members with the motivation and "locational good fortune" (in the sense of
"being in a position to report on something") to take the time and make the
effort to create a feature-article-worthy report. No member input, no magazine
- simple as that.

So if I've a point for RAS-idents with internalized "contest-related reporting
gripes" it would be: don't stop at simply grousing on RAS about stuff which is
beyond Joe Editor's direct control. Take your complaints to a higher level,
say, actively seeking to recruit a fellow volunteer perhaps better
geographically positioned than you, or more talented in the writing arena, or
(use your imagination), and take real action designed to actually improve
*your* magazine.

Bob - you can relax now, my soapbox is buried in new snow - W.