We have all got issues, in our business as well as personal lives. The maritime industry as a whole has got them, but so do we here at Digital Ship. 
 
Our magazine has repeatedly been confronted with the accusation of apparent bias. We'd favor some faces / companies over others. What can I say? Sorry, but that's not entirely our fault.
 
Let me ensure you: in true journalistic spirit we set out to report the news, the market news. Your news. Communication is key, and it can only work two-ways.
 
We cannot be everywhere at all times. Since the very beginning, we have encouraged all of you - no matter how small or big your company - to approach us with news about recent developments. I'd like to do this again: If you are fed up with spotting the same names over and over again, get in touch! If you are unhappy with our editorial coverage, please contribute with your ideas. The sooner the better.
 
Now to the heavier issues that plague the maritim e  community as a whole. Let's talk about our image for a second. The public seems to view ship owners as shifty, filthy rich characters, which neither care about the environment nor their human slaves onboard (or ashore for that matter).
 
Some of them may well fit the above description, but the majority does not. The Posidonia Congress saw quite some debate about this, but instead of moaning about the status quo, things need to start (and keep) changing.
 
As classification society is ever more promoting the naming and shaming of sub-standard ships (and their owners and managers), one thing seems clear: shipping does not require more regulation, but the enforcement of exisiting rules.
 
With AIS, VDR, ISM and STCW 95, as well as recent security debates, there is lots to do yet on the technology side. A challenge both the providers and users of technology services have to rise to.
 
Enjoy the issue
 
Yana Lenzner
Digital Ship