Protest On Vietnam

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31196, 21 October 1966, Page 10

Protest On Vietnam

Sir.—The appearance of an advertisement signed by a thousand persons of responsible status in the community disagreeing with the policies of a visiting head of State is not a matter of taste or courtesy; it is a matter of information. “The Press” has done the country a disservice in censoring this advertisement, taking upon itself the role of the protectors of the status quo in a police State. The expression of dissenting opinion might possibly dissuade President Johnson from more precipitate action which might further endanger the peace of the world.—Yours etc. (DR.) LESLIE SYMONS. Octpber 20, 1966.

Sir,—The day the advertising manager of your paper becomes the arbiter of good taste will be a sad one for New Zealand. It is surely a basic principle of any free news service to allow intelligent people with convictions to express their views. I refer to your paper’s suppression of the anti-Vietnam advertisements. The people concerned are prepared to identify themselves with their views, and to pay for doing so. Before you reserve their rights, you should re-examine the concept of anonymous letters in your correspondence columns. —Yours etc. RUPERT GLOVER. October 19, 1966.

Sir—“ The Press" has shown impeccable taste by refusing to insult distinguished overseas visitors. Christchurch is fortunate in having such an institution as “The Press.” It reflects the best qualities of New Zealanders, including loyalty.—Yours etc. L. J. R. FERRISS. October 20, 1966.

Sir,—l am pleased to see that good taste will in future be a criterion for the insertion of advertisements. Presumably this means that we will see no more full-page corset advertisements or religious cartoons. This innovation will be appreciated by many. —Yours etc. ARTHUR F. KIP. October 20, 1966.

Sir, —I have read with astonishment your reply to Geoffrey A. Lane. You are well aware that to many of your readers public demonstration on the occasion of the President’s visit is a moral obligation. Is one to assume that in your columns social decorum takes precedence over moral conviction? I should like to remind you of a fairly recent controversy in your correspondence columns. Many readers objected to the tone of a full-page religious advertisement, but on that occasion, your reply was that you were not responsible for the standards of taste of your advertisers. Some explanation of the change in editorial policy is called for.—Yours, etc., R. A. SHEARER. October 20. 1966.