I agree entirely with your analysis of how it is a good thing at earlier stages of breaking down the barriers, and not so good a thing later on. Generalizing, this sort of thing is "good" or "bad" depending on the environment -- the group of people who are seeing it. (Presumably it's "neutral", or so close as makes no difference, in some cases, too, if only as part of a transition.)
The group of people reading a magazine, submitting to a magazine, editing the magazine, and hearing about what's happening at a magazine (especially if somebody on the Internet thinks it's noteworty) are all different. Therefore, the answer to whether an all- issue is a good thing may differ for each of those groups.
So in theory, something that was good for the group of people reading the magazine might look bad to the people writing for it, or to self-selected flash mobs off the Internet attracted by a claim that something bad was happening.
This is but one example of how group 3 there (the editors) have a hard job. I, like you, suspect they made the wrong choice this time, but it might actually be the right choice relative to their readership; I know almost nothing about their readership.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 08:27 pm (UTC)The group of people reading a magazine, submitting to a magazine, editing the magazine, and hearing about what's happening at a magazine (especially if somebody on the Internet thinks it's noteworty) are all different. Therefore, the answer to whether an all- issue is a good thing may differ for each of those groups.
So in theory, something that was good for the group of people reading the magazine might look bad to the people writing for it, or to self-selected flash mobs off the Internet attracted by a claim that something bad was happening.
This is but one example of how group 3 there (the editors) have a hard job. I, like you, suspect they made the wrong choice this time, but it might actually be the right choice relative to their readership; I know almost nothing about their readership.