Other formats

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

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume. 33, Number 10. 8 July, 1970

Salient

page 2

Salient

One thing that should not be lost sight of in the Focus debacle is that Mr Steed, in his article on the girl who was 'hooked on cannabis' appears to have exploited an entirely unreliable source. Lisa is a liar. The story she told to Bill Logan differed vastly from that told to Mr Steed. She even told Mr Logan that she had told the Sunday Times reporter some lies. She is reported to have since signed a statement saying that all the 'facts' in the Sunday Times article were true. Can anything this girl has to say be regarded as credible?

Mr Steed's merits as a journalist must be judged in the light of his willingness to make so unreliable a person the basis of an article. And his qualities must be judged in terms of the articles which he has written. His journalism is sensationalist—but it has been good (as in an excellent article about Brian Edwards.) On the other hand, it has been very bad as in the case of this description of marijuana (from the 'young girl hooked on cannabis' story):

"... the terror that leads to addiction, stiffer drugs, character disintegration, madness and often on to death."

Mr Steed does his reputation no good by writing crap like this and the Sunday Times does its readers no service by printing it.

And as for Mr Gruar. Well, there is a very strong case for an editorial there, too. We may see one in the Sunday Times. It could be along the lines of this one, making precisely the same points. And it would be entirely justified. In going off half-cocked on this issue, Mr Gruar has wasted an excellent opportunity for a shot at some bad journalism and at the Sunday Times for printing it. He has also seriously damaged the credibility of Focus. What a bloody mess.

The rumblings on the right which have led to Monday night's SGM need not be taken too seriously. The petitioners' grievances seem to be so nearly incoherent that the meeting is almost certain to collapse into farce. And in one case where the nature of a grievance can be established (in the attack on Association policy on the All Black Tour of South Africa, Rhodesia and South West Africa) the petitioners are plainly out of step with the majority of students.

Another ground hesitantly cited for the motion of no-confidence in the Executive (and why this is not a motion naming the SRC—which made both of the policy decisions referred to—escapes me entirely) was the abolition of Procesh. Here, the "law and accountancy students" are quite right to be dissatisfied. Procesh needed to be cleaned up but there was no justification for its abolition unless a clean-up could not take place.

And, in fact, a clean-up wasn't tried. No disciplinary action of any kind was taken against the barbarians who were responsible for the damage complained of by the Hotel Association. Instead, the whole of Procesh was condemned for the sake of a few dozen students.

The motion of no-confidence cannot be expected to generate too much excitement. The idea of the Executive being too left-wing is good for a laugh or two, though, so go along if you haven't got a movie to see. Or if you're interested in the other item on the agenda—a motion rescinding a decision made at an SGM in March which required the SRC's approval for the Publications Board's appointee as Editor of Salient.

There are now six SRC appointees on the Publications Board. This is a situation which is not in itself entirely desirable, because it has had the effect of introducing political questions and personality issues into Board discussions to an extent which was not apparent before. But surely these SRC members, who are close to providing a majority of the Board's membership, can be expected to safeguard the SRC's interests adequately? (One must assume here, with a considerable measure of charity, that the SRC's interests are those of the student body.) To take the Salient editorship into the SRC is to make that appointment a political one. We are in danger of realising a situation where unsuccessful candidates will 'take their case to an SRC meeting'. In such a situation, partisan groups could act to ensure the appointment of an 'attractive' candidate.

Would this be a desirable situation? Should the editorship be a political appointment? I think not and I hope that the SGM will pass Mr Collins' motion and take this step towards ensuring the continued editorial independence of the student newspaper.

Comment in the last issue of Salient on the actions of members of the Police in dealing with anti-tour demonstrators has stimulated some response. Last week Margaret Bryson, Les Atkins and I were invited by the Police to make statements on incidents at the Airport on 13 June involving Detective-Sergeant C.W. Lines. Readers will recall that Detective-Sergeant Lines was seen hitting one demonstrator and kicking another. Police investigations are also proceeding into a number of other complaints against individual policemen.

David Harcourt