Forum: F-35 Lightning II

SpudmanWP wrote:

Advertisement <> sponsorship. Otherwise every newspaper and tv news show could be called bias.

btw, I never see banners, thank you Firefox + AdBlock Plus Smile

btw, Dassault and Thales are both advertisers too. That does not keep SLD from bashing them Smile

Sorry, I was posting from memory. I called it an advertising banner. SLDinfo calls it "Our Sponsors."

F-16.net Sponsor

Same difference Smile

I want to take a moment to point out to all members of F-16.net community that I have absolutely no financial conflicts of interest.

AvWeek's Bill Sweetman asked me that and as Editor of Sldforum.com I published a public response--

http://www.sldforum.com/2011/09/message ... he-editor/

I have no problem with Bill Sweetman's or his crediability I just think Bill needs to get his hands dirty and go design an airplane and then come back and write articles. It is easy to call in plays from the side lines, but it's whole different game trying to execute them on the field of play.

With The Highest Respects,

Alloycowboy

easy wrote:

I want to take a moment to point out to all members of F-16.net community that I have absolutely no financial conflicts of interest.

AvWeek's Bill Sweetman asked me that and as Editor of Sldforum.com I published a public response--

http://www.sldforum.com/2011/09/message ... he-editor/

Yeah, BS' feathers must have been really ruffled for him to issue that challenge.. loved the response though..LOL

Wow. That was quite a rebuttal. I am waiting to see what Bill Sweetman has to say about him writing to the EIC and asking HIM the same question.

Nice rebuttal, I do have a comment or two.

Mr. Sweetman asked it SLD had ever recieved payments, not you (the editor) personally, although I think that would be included.

I know for fact Aviation Week has recieved many payments from most defence and aviation companies. How do I know you ask? Have you seen the number of adds on that site? You have to pay to advertise on Aviation Week, therefore Aviation Week does recieve payments. And I have seen, Boeing, LM, Ratheon, NGC, BAE, Airbus, IAI, and many more.

Sufa Viper

sufaviper wrote:

I know for fact Aviation Week has recieved many payments from most defence and aviation companies. How do I know you ask? Have you seen the number of adds on that site? You have to pay to advertise on Aviation Week, therefore Aviation Week does recieve payments. And I have seen, Boeing, LM, Ratheon, NGC, BAE, Airbus, IAI, and many more.

Ads on websites go through automated systems, so the site owners have no choice in which ads go where. Once they agree with an ad-merchant to allow them to put ads up, the ad-merchant just sets it up so ads are automagically picked from the list based on key words found at the site. That can even mean a host site ends up with ads that are directly opposed to what the host site actually does/thinks/says. For example, James Randi, a former stage magician whose foundation debunks superstitious things like astrology and "psychic" readings, has ads on his site offering astrological services and "psychic" readings, because the auto-ad algorithm detects a lot of uses of related words on his site.

The money still goes from the Defense Contractor to Aviation Week (or another site). Yes there is a middle-man, but the point is the money still goes through. Also if there are ads in the Magazine version, money is also being transfered.

My point wasn't that Aviation Week is somehow bad for accepting Ad money, I just find the motivation for the question interesting (not that I know for certain what that motive is). The apparent motivation when I look at questions being asked is that Bill was shown that he messed up in that he did not cover the outstanding performance of the F-35 sensors at NE, which is related to the ISR issue (nothing wrong with that, he is human and when not covering something he has a strong opinion on Bill is a good journalist), so he was looking for a way to discredit SDL and pass them of as another paid for site.

Sufa Viper

Also, there is a difference in the types of publication that these two sources represent. AW&ST is a typical sector specific trade periodical (old media,) and SLD appears to be a sponsored advocacy organization/channel/blog/forum (new media.) Two different animals, with differing sets of ethics, internal controls, financial models, and motivation. I find them both interesting reads.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

A Rebuttal to McCain's "Tragedy"