Salient Critic

(1) I did not say student apathy is NOT a factor. I did say. "Any attempt to plead apathy generally I cannot allow." A different thing.

(2) I did not label any specific articles bad journalism. I did say that "Cries of Red . . . may be justified by bad journalism." Also a different thing. That is to say that bad journalism gives a wrong impression and causes cries of Red.

(3) I did not say that you should cater for the woolly-minded. I suggested you make some allowances for them.

(4) I did not criticise articles on their own ground because my point is that "the over-all impression is important." My criticisms were of Salient content, not article content. This also is an obvious distinction.

(5) I did not say that the "last issue" ran fillers. My criticism was of the chosen viewpoint of fillers when they are used in any issue.

(6) My criticism was not founded on an appeal to a "fundamental political or religious bias" but on an appeal to Salient to realise that too much evidence of that very bias in any direction in Salient itself takes away from Salient's effectiveness.

I want Salient read by as many people as possible without surrendering a fundamental viewpoint. Wise journalism, I contended, could achieve this without alienating as many potential readers as at present—a contention your wildly inaccurate editorial ignores.

Veritas.