This isn't what I paid for

So I decided to buy a popular US science and technology magazine at the station last Friday to keep me entertained on the journey back to Rugby. Unfortunately for me and my wallet, I didn't realise that if I wanted better value for money I'd have been better off throwing the money at into the toilet and spending the journey staring out of the window.

It's not to say that the few articles that actually were in the magazine weren't mildly entertaining, but I think that giving over 56% of your total editorial space (with 49% of that being pure advertising) to things other than articles is a strange move. I suppose I'm not used to leafing through 16 pages of promotional imagery before I get to the contents page. Perhaps I'm being naive in thinking that you can produce a magazine without selling that much space to advertisers, or perhaps the UK is just biding its time before the ad-men get serious.

p.s. I'm probably being unfair by including the letters pages in "Waffle" (of which, there were 2.5 pages worth), but I don't think they qualify as proper articles.