Letters to the Editor,The Morning Bulletin

Tuesday 13th March, 2001 (28 A.C.)

'Other' side's opinion

Re the emergence of "hate" in Rockhampton : I am writing to give my two cents' worth in regard to this latest incident, that has consumed much of your newsprint already.

I do believe that I am qualified to give the "other" side's opinion, as you have already published in your newspaper that I am racist (re Sarah Britten's letter).

Seeing the TV article on the local news, I went to the website shown and had a look around.

It was quite interesting in that there seems to be no mention of Nazism in there, especially in regard to its ideology.

Oh yes, it does mention that Adolf Hitler was a much-admired man but does that mean that they are Nazis ?

I liked the way that, in your Saturday edition, you managed to get those famous buzzwords of "hate", "nazi" and "clan".

I also liked the way the Editor, John Schalch says :"That anyone could possibly judge people on ... their religious beliefs .. is deplorable and unintelligent".

Since you are attacking/judging someone for their religious beliefs, i.e. the members of the World Church of the Creator, does that mean John Schalch and, by consequence, The Morning Bulletin, is "deplorable and unintelligent" ?

And here I so honestly thought that the newspapers were neutral and non biased, not affected by outside political forces. I must be so naive.

Michael J. Ireland, North Rockhampton.

CLARIFICATION

Let us look at this article that I wrote and see what it is about, especially in the selectivity of the phrases and timing of its publication.

• Did the newspaper publish the entire letter ? : No. I have no doubt that this was an EDITORial decision, not to publish my letter in entireity. In the paragraph detailing the buzzwords, at the end of that sentence "... and "clan" - was that last one a misprint ??", was not recorded. Why did they do this, I have no idea.
• Has the newspaper actually called you a racist in the past ? : Yes. The letter I referred to in this letter, the person in question said that the idea of having a treaty with the niggers of Australia "... must be a bee in the bonnet of racists." - since she was referring to my letter, she was calling me a racist. The newspaper willingly allowed this to be published, most likely hiding behind that clause of "The authors' opinions are not necessarily that of the editor's".
• Why is the timing mentioned ? : In case you are unaware, that letter was written on the 28th February, 2001 (28 A.C.), and given even the most relaxed delivery status of the post office, they had that letter in their possession for over a week, before deciding to publish it. Why not publish it earlier ?? Was it due to space requirements or that the paper wanted to stir the controversary up again, to sell more papers ?? Far from me to determine the inner workings of the newspaper !!
• Is there anything else that causes you concern about the editorial standards of the paper ? : Yes. It is my opinion that this newspaper is most prejudiced against any form of free speech at all. They deride any non-conformist viewpoint so as to cause controversary, rather than discuss issues. A few minor points though ; first, they refuse to place my title in front of my name, which is Bro., as being a member of the WCOTC allows me to have this. If they can do the same honour for the Salvation Army person, then why not me ?? Secondly, they didn't give you a date regarding Sarah Britten's letter, so that people maybe able to refer to it. And finally, they refused to place the date on the letter. Anyone who reads this letter will naturally assume that it was written in the week prior to its publication, as is normally the case. Of course, the paper has done nothing illegal nor do I wish to give this impression.

Home