Letter to the Editor
Courier Mail
The Editor,

A few years ago, a survey was conducted within your profession, seeking the opinion of journalists in general, on the comparative qualities of Australian newspapers. The'Courier Mail' I recall was duly noted by the journalists, as 'being somewhat staid in its presentation, but having a good reputation for its factual presentation of news'. Having moved on after many years of reading the 'Courier Mail' to what I thought was a more sophisticated and intellectual broadsheet I was surprised to read this comment and I remember thinking, that in a democracy, with a free press, and the responsibilities this imposes on the 'fourth estate' this is a pretty good quality to have in a newspaper. Honest reporting, with opinion, said, or unsaid, left to editorials. This implied to me both a respect for its readers and for the presentation of the truth as a prerequisite of this responsibility. It reflected highly I thought on the quality of the management and staff on the paper.

As the 'Courier' had become my introduction to an Australian / Queensland perspective of the news from 1962 on, and along with weet-bix, 'vegemite', the paper formed a staple part of the breakfast table I was not unpleased I had moved to this part of the world.

I am disappointed therefore after all these years in reading the article written by Hedley Thomas on the 24th of April under the title "Peace at a price" placed in the supplement, Inside Mail.

I along with many others had the good fortune to be able to attend the event the reporter writes about, and to have also been for many years a student of Maharaji, having received his beautiful and simple gift of Knowledge in 1980. This being the case I could detail at length the many inaccuracies and distortions postulated in the article but suffice for me to say, (as this seemed to be a central part of the reporter's focus), I, like many others, who are also not financially well off, was invited to attend the event whatever my circumstances and of course I did. This has always been so. In that alone, by innuendo the article was dishonest. The article was dishonest in the 'facts' it offered, dishonest in it presentation, and dishonest as an example of journalist objectivity.

Regarding the reporter, my first analysis of his work, was of someone writing from a subjective and malicious intent, but on later reflection and less generously, it reads to me now rather as the work of a cynic (and the world does that well) and journalist who has become jaded, tired, lazy with the truth and needing a story.

It hurt me that such an article would be permitted to be published in your paper.

Yours Sincerely

J. P. Smith