I describe myself as a ‘self-employed defence consultant’, though as I get older this might be more accurately rendered as a ‘sometimes-employed defence consultant’. (There is still a fair amount of work on offer, but I’m trying to cut back on my working hours to the degree that economic reality permits.)
As regards magazines, I have a client who pays for my 'Jane’s Defence Weekly', 'Jane’s International Defence Review', and 'Jane’s Missiles & Rockets'. But since I get these for free, I’m not exactly an impartial observer.
The sheer cost of Jane’s publications perhaps explains why they are often seems to be singled out for criticism when errors are spotted. But in practice, all defence magazines have their share of errors. But I’d imagine that the same applies to all business operations.
Over almost half a century I’ve certainly managed to commit my personal share of engineering and documental errors. But given that most people probably commit their own share of work-related errors, it surprises me how some people get so annoyed when the ‘fourth estate’ gets it wrong.
I used to be a great fan of the original ‘International Defense Review’, but that title lost most of its staff (and much of its expertise) when it was taken over by Jane’s and was moved from Switzerland to the UK. I met its Swiss-era editor in the 1970s, and remember him saying that being Swiss-owned had allowed it to form good relationships with sources who would not have given information on WarPac and other non-NATO hardware to any magazine based in a NATO nation.
One poster here spoke favourably of ‘Military Technology’. It’s not a magazine I take, but its editor has been doing the job since soon after the title was started around 30 years ago. That sort of long-term experience may be working in the magazine’s favour.
There is certainly an impression amongst those of us old enough to remember the Second World War that the aviation and defence press is not as good as it once was. That may reflect a generation gap caused by the gradual passing of a generation of highly-experienced writers, both in the US and Western Europe. Defence writing apparently does not pay well, so what should have been the follow-on generation of defence journalists seems to have suffered a high loss rate, with writers moving into better-paying alternative jobs such as public relations.
If you play ‘spot the press badge’ at defence and air shows, many of the reporters seem quite young. (But it’s said that you know you’re getting old when even the policemen seem young.) However, some of the ‘old guard’ are still with us – at an air show a couple of years ago I spotted Bill Gunston, still very recognisable from the publicity ‘mugshot’ in his early 1970s “… of the West” book series.
