Other formats

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

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Newspaper of the Victoria University Students' Association. Vol 42 No. 18. July 30 1979

The Battlelines Drawn

The Battlelines Drawn

The battlelines were then drawn by Andrew Tees, mover of the motion. First mentioning what he sees as the domination of Salient by "a well-known ultra-politico clique," he said that basically the motion intended to turn over the election of the Salient editor to "you, the students" rather than the "select minority" on the Publications Board."

"I needn't remind you of the patent rubbish that has been put out by editors over the years," he said, and launched into a tirade against the "trendy leftist politicos who hang around the newspaper." He then referred to what he sees as "the arrogant attitude that has pervaded editors for more than a few years, a holier than thou attitude that students are apathetic" (never!!).

Regarding the image Salient presented to the community, Tees said people think "we are a load of left-wing punk rockers." "I don't prescribed to either persuasion in particular." He finished off by claiming that the "existing checks on the editor are totally inadequate to protect out money and our image in the community."

His ammunition exhausted, Tees handed over to seconder of the motion. Robin Craw, who charged into the fray claiming that the motion was designed to establish the democratic aims of the Constitution, one man one vote. "You sexist bastard" came a voice from the floor. He said that Peter Beach's claim that the motion represented a threat to editorial independence shows that he "doesn't understand the difference between editorial independence and arrogant sovereignty." "The motion doesn't limit independence, it merely makes the editor both independent and representative."

Shaking off this vicious two-pronged attack, the defending forces' vanguard in the shape of Publications Board Treasurer Tim Brown took the floor. He said that the effect of the motion would be to give students "power with no responsibility." "An editor requires a high degree of skill, and some degree of knowledge is needed for the selection of a good one. If someone comes along and speaks to you for two minutes, do you think you'll have enough knowledge?"

"Also," he said, "you'll have no power over what the elected editor does You'll be electing someone to be a dictator whereas the present system means the Publications Board is appointing someone who becomes a member of the Board."

Expanding on this point the following speaker, Paul Norman said that the Publications Board spends "some weeks" painstakingly researching candidates. "You don't have a politically controlled board at the moment but you would have politically controlled editors if they were directly elected."

Photo of Robin Craw and Saxby, with people around them voting

Craw to Saxby: "I hope Salient don't print this photo."

Cooking column contributor Alfred Harris then attracted derisive laughter when he blamed Merv Wellington's "unwillingness" (I thought he was scared!) to come and talk on campus on the tone of articles in recent issues of Salient, particularly a Bottom of the Week article entitled "Merv in Blunderland".

Poor Alf was also upset over some of the ingredients in his recipes ending up incorrect in the paper. "In future I'll go in and proof read my articles, but I shouldn't have to do this, it's the editor's job." He concluded by saying that what's needed is an editor "who will allow a diversity of opinion to be expressed. We don't have that at the moment.

Simon Wilson, dodging a barrage of hisses, then told the meeting that while criticism of the present selection system "may be fair in some respects," what has to be established is whether the new system will mean that job will be any better done. "To change the Constitution you have to be sure that it will bring an absolute improvement. And there is no guarantee we will get a better editor or a better Salient," he said.

In an attempt to bolster the now faltering attack, John Penney rose to say that it is not at all fair that the Publications Board has a majority of SRC representatives "elected by only 150 students." "The editor is editing for all students, not just 150, and therefore should be accountable to all. It's easier to have 150 votes swung than 6,000."

Steve Underwood hammered the final nails in the motion's coffin. He questioned whether the election of the editor would alter anything as it depended on the number of candidates who stand. "In 1977 there were two candidates, this year there was one. People are falling over themselves for the job," he said. "The fundamental test of an editor," he continued, "is whether or not that paper gets out, and while enthusiasm may be high for the first few issues it's a bloody drag working at midnight on a Thursday night when all the staff have gone home."

Tees, making a last ditch stand during his closing speech, said he felt sure the motion would produce an improvement. "How?" was the strident interjection. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" was the ineffectual reply. "We should give it a chance," he said. "The status quo is all very well, but we need a change."

The meeting however disagreed and the motion was finally laid to rest.