A Closet Editor from Auckland

Most letters to student papers reveal their author's opinions to be in line with, or opposed to, those of the staff. (Alternatively they have no opinions, only the desire to see their words in print.) Somehow Salient has polarised opinion so well that word of your exploits has penetrated to the independent republic of Auckland; I read in a letter to Craccum that not only is the editor of Salient biased, but he even admits it.

Leaving aside the question of an editor's right to bias, which I believe in, let's see just how biased Salient is. After leafing through a few back issues in the Auckland studass reading room, both of Craccum and Salient, it seemed to me that relative to the controversy and bias existing around Salient live or six years ago, today's atmosphere is quite mellow. This probably has nothing to do with changes in people's character — I'm sure we would still disagree completely on political questions, for I am still fundementally conservative (rightwing) and you, no doubt, are still fundementally radical (left-wing for want of a better label).

Much more likely there is less to fight about. Vietnam is a continuing story, but the role of western powers has diminished. The civil rights campaigns, and the struggle to remove corruption and oppression within western societies are far from over, but the movements for reform have been much strengthened simply by recognising that the problems exist, and a consensus in favour of solving them.

Additionally, your critics accuse you of journalistic incompetence. Even in Craccum, articles have appeared criticising (humourously) Salient's grammar and spelling - on one occasion nothing appeared amiss with the passage from Salient they held up to ridicule, so I asked the Craccum staff why it was printed. They swore somebody in the typesetting staff, some imp, had "corrected" their copy! and this sort of sabotage will continue in Salient or Craccum so long as either rag continues to employ staff with a sense of humour.

There is no question that typography and layout show more imagination than they once did; the July 3 issue demonstates also that staff are aware of the Power they wield - which letter-writers ignore at their peril.

All contributors to a paper write because they like to see their words in print and read. This is no bad thing provided ideas clothe words with form. In the absence of ideas, only ego remains, and we have something akin to indecent exposure. Part of an editor's job is to discourage this, as it leads to terrible temptation. If a letter or article betrays an infantile mind or ulterior motives, you can publish without comment and watch the poor author turn slowly, slowly, in the breeze - which in the Capital can be brisk.

The titles you give to letters can damn or praise in advance. If provoked beyond endurance, you can append short comments whose effect is to humiliate the writer and destroy his reasoning, beyond appeal. It is a source of constant amazement to me that anyone should be willing to set themselves up as a public Aunt Sally. But where there are students, there also are fools, not excepting myself.

Salient staff are in a fine position to Praise, as well. In particular I note the close relationship between the president of VUWSA (Lindy Cassidy) and Salient. Here in Auckland Craccum keeps [unclear: Mery] Prince very firmly in his place, without being hostile. Perhaps Mist Cassidy deserves her good press. But looking at her "card" in the July 3 issue, I am inclined to suspect that someone on the staff is worshipping from afar. Who wrote those cards, anyway?

I hear you have been in hospital lately. Me too. Whatever was wrong I hope you have recovered fully. Best wishes for the rest of the year, and long live Muldoon!

Snoopy in exile