Hi, Gabriel,
In light of what has happened recently, you might want to post this. It is my second letter to The Islander complaining of the censorship of my first letter. The editor refused to publish it.
Charlie
************
April 3, 2012
Dear Editor,
Thank you for publishing my letter regarding the inherent bias of having the same person write the lead articles and editorials (The Islander 29 Mar. 2012: 4). Unfortunately, it was not printed as written. The second paragraph should have read:
If you reread the lead articles and the editorials in The Islander issues of September 15, 2011, September 29, 2011, October 20, 2011, and November 17, 2011, you can clearly see a pattern: The sub-texts of the lead articles on political matters are prejudicial to someone (For example, “Surf forum ends in anger” in the issue of September 15, 2011 is prejudicial to Mr. Karno Walker, “Council calls in the troops” in the issue of October 20, 2011 is prejudicial to Crs. Ken Liu, Rosalie Chirgwin and Graham Walkom). The editorials that follow either attempt to justify the bias or finish the job started in the lead article. Nowhere is this clearer than in the recent “one-two” combination of “Chirgwin censured for code breaches” and the editorial “Unfit to continue”.
The article “Surf forum ends in anger” in the issue of September 15, 2011 is prejudicial to Mr. Karno Walker. The message of your editorial was that since the surf pro event was a “done-deal”, the community should put aside their differences and support the event. While you may look at that as conciliatory, another way to look at it is that it effectively dismisses the objections raised by Mr. Walker and others who were not given an opportunity to speak before the event was decided upon. In this case, the editorial attempts to justify the bias shown in the lead article
As this letter is clear, less than 300 words, and doesn’t present any legal issues except censorship, I hope that you will print it in its entirety.
Charlie Canning