CHURCHILL ON SATIRE
SIR,—Mr. Randolph Churchill has tried a double- barrelled defence of Christopher Booker's attack on the Guardian and especially on its editor, Alastair Hetherington. Neither shot seems to have been well- aimed.
Mr. Churchill says the piece in question was good rough stuff, possibly harsh in its criticism. To accuse an editor, on the strength of an unfortunate mistake in its foreign news, of having failed to produce a grown-up newspaper is .certainly rough and harsh. Is such an accusation. justified? Where is the' evidence?
Instead of producing it, Mr. Churchill blames me for crediting Mr. Booker with a satirical intention. He says I am prissy, use pedestrian English. have perhaps lived a sheltered life and do not know what satire is.
Booker, 'it appears, was merely rotting the Guardian about its mistake. That is, according to the dictionary, supported by my recollection of school slang, he chaffed' it severely. Can you call that satire? Yes, if you accept the definition of Webster that satire is raillery used to convey rebuke or criticism.
But need we bandy dictionary meanings? The question is whether the attack on Mr. Hetherington should have been made. It has not been substantiated with any evidence worth the name, and Mr. Churchill's excuse that it was just rotting seems to
28 North Parade, West Park, Leeds 16
Previous page
