Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

SMAD. An Organ of Student Opinion. 1936. Volume 7. Number 18.

Scathing Criticism

page 3

Scathing Criticism

We Are Attacked

Throughout the session we refrained from criticising your paper because we have always hoped that each successive issue would show an improvement, however faint, in opnion, matter and style. We can restrain ourselves no longer. Writing as the news sub-editors (of which Miss Hursthouse was the third) of last year's "Smad," we desire to express emphatically our considered opinion that the paper's standard this year has been so deplorable as not to justify its continued existance.

Last year "Smad" first appeared as a weekly newspaper and those in charge had no precedents on which to base the production of the paper. Moreover, it was the year of the printers' strike; a year of incessant conflict with down-town business organisations; a year in which the staff was nevercertain, because of this conflict, whether the paper would appear next week.

This year the staff has had none of these hindrances, yet we are convinced that the general standard of last year's "Smad" was highter and augured a more hopeful future than it does this year. It is a matter of considerable disappointment to "Smad's" was higher and augured a more hopeful future than it does this year. It is a matter of considerable disappointement to "Smad's" 1935 staff that the paper, instead of becoming an even more potent and necessary force in student life, has sunk far beneath the level of a parish magazine.

Some specific criticisms make clear our allegations.

(1) Editorials. After reading these we give thanks that "Smad" has ceased to be "an organ f student opinion." When not merely insipid they are potently reactionary. As an example of the first we refer you to your last editorial headed "Constitutional Amendment." To suggest that people who are not sufficiently interested to attend meetings should be granted the privilege of voting by a "postal or similar ballot!" As to yourreactionary editorials, we instance your editorial of 5th August, "On Military Service." Our sole comment is to suggest that this editorial should have been entitled "A Snivelling Justification of the University to the Hon. William Perry, M.L.C."

(2) Material. "Smad" was intended to be a newspaper. Let us consider your "Tramping Club Travelogues" in the light of the above statement. While fully sympathising with a policy of "See New Zealand First" we ourselves are quite satisfied to go to the Government Tourist Bureau for material which is of a definitely higher standard. We remember a front page report of a Training College "Social." We try to forgive numerous mis-statements and the issue in which you printed two "Nutshell Knowledges" side by side. You may reply that your appeals for contributions remain unanswered, but we know that several students possessing some talent have been denied expression in your columns.

(3) Initiative (Lack of). Even at slight inconvenience to yourself and the printer you should have reported the important Special General Meeting held this term instead of a very bad report of a month-old debate and your "Pleasure Cruise" criticism (sic!) loaded with unnecessary repetition.

4. Staff Notes ... It is interesting to note that your reporters consist of Ian, Tom, Bob, Mick, John, Bob, Ris, Archie, Malcolm and Joy. You appear to have omitted Saucy Susie, Tiny Tim, and Big-hearted Bill.

We have expressed almost half of our criticism and now desire to give notice of our intention in this regard. Unless the Executive gives a definite undertaking to replace a staff that has proved itself utterly incompetent and to investigate "Smad's" affairs and policy we intend to requisition a Special General Meeting at the beginning of next session and to move "That the publication of "Smad" be discontinued."

We are, dear Sir,

J. B. Aimers.

J. N. Sellers.

[We regret that we have been in any way responsible for the tirade of calumn contained in the effusion printed above. If such an attack were launched by less capable writers than Messrs. Aimers and Sellers, one might be inclined to ask what right, what qualification, they have to criticize. In the case of these two gentlemen, however, tbhis is quite unnecessary—their reputations are far too well known for that.

If we, in our turn, might be allowed to complain, we would bewail the unkind fate that deprived the College of having either one—or even both—of these talented and well-tried men controlling the destinies of her publication with an efficiency that would have been beyound all criticism.

While we would have been extgremely grateful to Messrs. Sellers and Aimers, as last year's news sub-editors, for any constructive criticism, yet we consider that their remarks about the quality and arrangement of "Smad" are quibbling in the extreme. We fail to see why two good numers of a featured series such as "Nutshell Knowledge" should not be printed side by side in the same issue, should there be no better copy forthcoming. Furthermore, Messrs. Aimers and Sellers mention as a specific instance of the poor quality of news, the club notes and in particular the "travelogues" printed from time to time on the front page. We would point out that it is part of the policy of "Smad" to give publicity to all clubs as impartially as possible, and would draw Messrs. Aimers' and Sellers' attention to the repeated and lengthy write-ups given the Dramatic Club, even during their term as News Sub-Editors. Let us state moreover, that if any comparatively insignificant article of news has appeared on the front page, it has been our policy to devote the front page exclusively to news items, and to leave the inside pages for featured articles et cetera. At this stage we would also direct the attention of Messrs. Sellers and Aimers to the issue of May 1st, 1935, in which almost any column could have included in its caption the word "hooey."

In reply to their contention that we can be experiencing no difficulty in obtaining sufficient copy, let us point to the article "Apathy and the Student" appearing over the initials "J.N .S." in the "Smad" of July 8th, 1936. It is reasonable to suppose that the quality and quantity of contributions to "Smad" has been affected deterimentally by that same apathy. As regards the emphatic statement of Messrs Aimers and Sellers that good copy has actually been turned down, we can safely say that any mnuscript that have been rejected have been well below the level of a "parish magazine."

From the fact that this letter has been left till the very last issue of "Smad" it is obvious that the attack has been dictated by personal animosity. Messrs. Sellers and Aimers have contained themselves just ten weeks too long, for had they boiled over sooner, they would have given some others of our readers a chance to reply perhaps, offering constructive criticism, and us an opportunity of making room for a more efficient staff.

In conclusion, we would assure Messrs. Aimers and Sellers that we would enjoy nothing better than to witness their efforts to have "Smad" discontinued by direction of a Special General Meeting of the Stud. Ass.

R. C. Connell

, Editor.

B. M. Pickering

, Associate Editor.

G. W. Shaw

, Literary Editor.

W. I. Combs

, News Sub-Editor]