Originally posted by Skyfloating
I think ever since the story on the barksdale missile story boomed and was embraced by normal journalists, the standards for having an ATS-Premium
piece accepted are much higher.
I may get some flack for saying this but I think that the payment thing has created the wrong kind of atmosphere. I can see why ATS want to offer
payment, but for those of us who are members and know how many people (moderators etc) give their time freely (in every sense of the term) to the site
it sets the bench mark pretty high when you are expecting payment knowing that they do not get much if anything - if that makes sense. It does not
appeal to the egalitarian in me...
I feel that there is enough talent and insight on ATS to produce the material required to increase circulation of the newsletter. There is some
fantastic material already on ATS that is original and deserving of a more public airing. Creating a balance between new content and 'classic'
content would increase the appeal of ATS to a much broader audience base. Perhaps moving to a more e-zine format as opposed to the (no offence meant)
simple list format that it currently takes.
Just my ten pen'orth, but I believe that we are all selling ourselves a little short. A member-centric editorial team and a newsletter dedicated
board could, in fact should, bring the newsletter to the standard of the site in general. Funds generated by hits or advertising could then be
redirected into commissioning original articles/work and perhaps giving members the funds needed to complete the required research needed to produce
original work.
