All at sea Sir: Even non-columnists writing about non- stories
should do their homework, assuming they intend to be taken seriously. Mr Grundy (5 July) could 'find no mention' of Vietnam in the Observer of 30 June. He could hardly have tried : there were two columns about it on page 7, under a four-column heading. Three staff men have been to Vietnam this year, and we have had reports in every single issue except today's (7 July).
He implies, with careful evasiveness, that we have ignored Biafra. To the News of the World it may well be 'The War the World Forgot,' but we have had five correspondents (three of them staff men) there this year alone, and we have carried reports on the Nigeria-Biafra prob- lem in every issue except two (on 30 June, a report, a photograph and an editorial comment).
To paraphrase Mr Grundy, if a commentator on press performance is to be considered serious, isn't a sense of proportion—and accuracy— everything? 'By all means report the trivial,' Mr Grundy, but do read the papers.
K. P. Obank Managing Editor, The Observer, 160 Queen Victoria Street, London EC4 Bill Grundy writes: But I do, Mr Obank, I do. I read my editions, you read yours. Mine, in Manchester, contained nothing at all about Vietnam on page 7. It did have a story on page 2 headed 'Propaganda gap widens at Vietnam peace talks.' It was by Robert Stephens and was datelined Paris. There was then one inch on the Vietcong attack on Son Tra, which I am sorry I didn't credit you with.
As for my 'careful evasiveness' (come outside and say that again) I implied nothing of the sort about your coverage of Biafra. Indeed I said explicitly that most of the time the Observer does us proud over serious news. What I was complaining about—and I thought I made it clear—was that I was bored by fifty column inches on your blasted boat race.
Previous page
