Welcome to the Rockhampton Branch of the W.C.O.T.C.
Letters to the
Tuesday 13th March,
2001 (28 A.C.)
Re the emergence of "hate" in
: 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
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
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
Oh yes, it does mention that Adolf
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"
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.
J. Ireland, North Rockhampton.
Let us look at this article that I
and see what it is about, especially in the selectivity of the phrases
and timing of its publication.
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.
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".
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 !!
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.
to the Newspaper Articles Page