Mr. Brook.

No symposium would be complete without reference to the backbone of the institution—Brookie; so we visited his palatial workshop. He was rather hostile at first, but soon became eloquent when we mentioned the magic word "Salient." Evidently he had very strong opinions on some points. Yes, he had been guilty of calling it a "rag," and apparently he would continue to do so in the future—still, at the end he did agree that it was not a bad paper after all. What he wanted in the "rag" and in the College was more fun and wit, providing it was kept in the right place. He informed us that he could supply us with a lot, but he would not let us publish it. I'm sure Brookie gets a lot of fun out of us but then quite often we think something very funny and Brookie simply fails to see the point.

Dr. J. C. Beaglehole.

The main thing in University journalism is that it should be alive. It can't be alive without a series of rows, and the noise of battle which surrounds "Salient" is therefore a healthy sign. It should also, I think, be in a broad sense political. If it is to have any relevance to life in our time—and in our time academicism and private jokes would be sterile and intolerable. This need, too, "Salient" answers. It should be indignant, and "Salient" is sometimes indignant. On the other hand, I should like to see the paper more consistently grappling with books, pictures, music, and with the problems of the University; also (as I demand a lot) I should like to see it play the fool a bit more often; also I should like to see some of its poets try the effect of rhyme.

Mr. R. W. Edgley.

You have asked for my opinion of "Salient". At the outset, I would say that the paper is most capably and efficiently controlled. It is out on time unfailingly, with all its space filled, and I have never made a request for the insertion of any notice on behalf of the Executive which has not received immediate attention.

Regarding the policy of the paper, this does not receive the unqualified approval of the College—it would be an extraordinary, and probably a poor sort of paper that did. I would not be surprised to learn that the views expressed in the paper do not represent the opinions of the majority of the students of the College. But these views appear to me to express the opinions of the majority of those students who take a really active part in College affairs, and in social and political problems. Whether the policy of the paper represents the opinions of the majority of the students could only be determined by taking the sum totals of all the personal opinions of the students.

I feel at times that there could be more College news in the paper. This again is purely a matter of personal opinion, and probably a lot of matter inserted in lieu of College news is of considerable interest, and assists to make the paper a more balanced one. Personally, however, I would prefer to have film reviews omitted. Such are my comments for what they are worth.

Mr. W. T. G. Johnston.

We Interview Mr. W. T. G. Johnston :—This gentleman was asked his opinion of "Salient", "Bunk" was the reply, and even on repeated questioning we could get nothing but "Bunk." Mr. Johnston then proceeded to distribute "Salient" for half an hour on Wednesday night and still his reply was unchanged. We enquired whether he had read it, and were greeted with an indignant "No", At a later stage of the day he was observed reading a borrowed copy. In the morning he remarked that "Salient" had got into a groove, and the latest edition certainly did contain fresh opinions and material. So far he has not expended three-pense.

(Continued alongside.)

•

"Wanted to sell, Angora Rabbit, cheap. 15/-; also Art Course. Ring 27-444 after 6 p.m."—"Evening Post."3/5/1939.