Priestley too much a man of letters

Press, 28 August 1978, Page 15

Priestley too much a man of letters

By

JOHN COLLINS

I. F. Stone, of Pakuranga, writes: “Why is it that Brian Priestley, who is eminently well qualified to analyse and criticise our newspapers because of his wide newspaper experience and his job as a teacher of journalism, seems to devote much of his ‘News Stand’ programme every Friday to the usually trivial inquiries and correspondence of viewers, most of whom clearly think that the discovery of a

wrong spelling in the ‘■Waikato Times” or a misplaced caption in the “Dominion” is a subject of great delight and interest the un* covering of which is a service to mankind?” Well, I. F. Stone, of Pakuranga. I have to agree with you there. I really don’t know why Brian Priestley bothers with his Marjorie Proops of the Airwaves number, particularly since he has only ten minutes a week to analyse millions of words of journalism and, God knows, indeed Brian knows, there must be the odd teeny-weeny fault worth pouncing on every week, even given the closeness to perfection of most of our newspapers.

And now a Itter from William Randolph Hearst, of Geraldine, who writes: "Do you think that perhaps Brian Priestley devotes much of his programme to correspondence because it’s an easier way of filling ten minutes than actually sifting through all those grey old rags and coming up with something worth-while to comment on? Incidentally, I was outraged to see that the “Bay of Plenty Times” print-

ed a photograph upside down on page 17 last Tuesday and I wonder if this should be brought to the notice of the Press Council or perhaps the United Nations.” Thank you for writing, Mr Hearst. Yes. I have to admit I was so shocked by the, I suspect, deliberate violation of all the accepted traditions of the printing of photographs that I felt like stabbing myself with a tightlyrolled copy of the "Plumb-

er’s Gazette.” As for the suggestion that Brian Priestley is using letters as fillers, no, I must disagree. I have the impression that Mr Priestley is essentially a very democratic man who feels that it’s important to involve the public in his programme and give them an opportunity to comment on their newspapers. I just wish he wouldn’t, because I’d rather he spent his precious ten minutes on comparing the way newspapers handled big issues, in the way a programme I used to enjoy years ago in Britain, “What The Papers Say,” did. Finally, a letter from William Rees-Mogg, of Granity: “I’m sorry I haven’t written to you earlier, but I have J spent the last two weeks in the intensive-care unit of the Granity Workingmen’s Club, having been so devastated by the spelling in the ’Otago Daily Times’ of the word, accommodation, with only one m that I was forced to rest. I think what you are trying to say is that Mr Priestley could do more with his programme, even though you probably agree he is a nice, chirpy, budgerigar sort of a man and certainly

someone to be congratulated for ovecoming the serious difficulties involved in making spectacles stay on noses.”

Yes, Mr Rees-Mogg, I think he could. I think, for a start, he should regularly look at big stories and compare the way the papers have handled them, rather in the way he has been looking at the coverage, or non-cov-erage, of the drug problem. Obviously, his task is harder than that of the presenter of “What The Papers Say” because he is not just called on to look at a handful of national newspapers working from the same city. But Mr Priestley is clearly a perceptive, intelligent man and it would be pleasant and instructive if he ceased to act mainly like the receptionist in a complaints department.

POINTS OF VIEWING