Letters the NZ Herald wouldn’t publish*

By   /   May 1, 2018  /   5 Comments

TDB recommends Voyager - Unlimited internet @home as fast as you can get

*please note that the NZ Herald refused to print this letter to the editor

The Malcolm Evans cartoon the NZ Herald punished him for.

While referencing the thoughts of five others, in his piece on free speech in yesterday’s Herald, it’s extraordinary that Gavin Ellis should have omitted the most famous of them all on the subject, that written by  biographer Beatrice Evelyn Hall to describe great French thinker and writer Voltaire’s attitude to it, – “ I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Gavin Ellis then went on to say “a useful guide” he used when, as editor of the Herald, he was faced with a contentious opinion, was to ask “what harm will be done if we publish?” when, in my view, as the cartoonist he barred from drawing cartoons critical of Israel, he should have been asking – “what harm will be done if we don’t?”

 

Malcolm Evans

Cartoonist NZ Herald 1976 – 78 and 1996 – 2003

 

*please note that the NZ Herald refused to print this letter to the editor

***
Want to support this work? Donate today
***
Follow us on Twitter & Facebook
***

About the author

Malcolm Evans

Political Cartoonist

Malcolm Evans is one of NZs best political cartoonists who was sacked from the NZ Herald for daring to suggest Israel was the new apartheid state.

5 Comments

  1. Christine says:

    Harm to whom ?

    Gavin likely meant he’s not too keen on anything that encourages critical thinking. Hence Stuff now emulating an Aunt Daisy cookbook.

  2. Priss says:

    Funny how trash-rags like the Herald defend their right to publish utter rubbish like Debra Hill Cone-with-an-Eeeeeeeeeeee, under “freedom of speech’, but will reject anything critical of them or the establishment.

    Or maybe not so funny.

  3. Mjolnir says:

    Why is it that bigots and misfits used “freedom of speech” to defend some odious, ignorant comment they’ve uttered, rather than justify that comment on its own merits? Why is that? Is it because the comment itself is indefensible?

    I suspect so.

  4. esoteric pineapples says:

    Employers are pretty brutal to people they have sacked, and they certainly won’t open the door to let them in the (metaphorical) building again in any way whatsoever, and certainly will never give them an opportunity to air their views.
    This letter never had the slightest hope of making it into the paper. Which brings up an interesting point – what we can’t see or isn’t acknowledged doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The invisible can exert a powerful presence. For instance, start publishing stories about the New Zealand Wars as part of Anzac Day remembrances (which usually focus on service people during the two world wars) and see what happens. You won’t get them into a major media outlet.

  5. Ike says:

    The provincial outposts of the Herald, such as Hawkes Bay Today, share the same policies. You can critiscise but not too much. If it is the war mongering USA/NATO or Israel, very little indeed. What goes around comes around. These idiots do not realize that exposing that which is immoral in our society is important. If it is hidden something worse will eventuate. Possibly a society like present day USA. Perhaps they do realize and put their own self interest above that of society in general.