All axes to the bigotry of Stuarts
Russell Brown quotes an internal Press email informing staff Alexis Stewart's would "no longer be writing her fortnightly column for The Press, because of concern that has been raised about the originality of some of her material in her most recent column".
The editor of the Press, Paul Thompson goes on to explain how a correspondent to the Press noticed that the some of the wording used by Stuart in her last column was identical to an article written by the Maxim Institute's director Bruce Logan. Mr Logan is Alexis Stuart's father.
The gist of the email quoted by Russell also appeared in the Press today, as a response from the editor to the following letter.
Alex Stuarts column (Oct 4) was a revelation. The same old Maxim Institute propaganda masquerading as personal opinion, but more cogent than usual. Both style and content reminded me of Bruce Logan. You know Bruce, the MI's director who wrote a similar article in the Northland Age (Sept 8). In fact, so similar some of it is identical. For example, both wrote: "Diversity is not a value, its a description of reality. One cannot display diversity as a value, let alone a virtue. Neither is community a value - how does an individual display community?...Excellence is an outcome; it is certainly not the possession of human character." Either Alexis wrote Bruce's article (unlikely), Bruce wrote Alexis's (sic) column (possible), or Alexis cribbed from Bruce's article and did not acknowledge her source (possible). Whichever, just how many mouthpieces for the Maxim Institute does the Press need - or is it want?
Thank you Lynn Williams, you have done Christchurch Press readers a huge favour.
For several months Alexis Stuart's columns have attracted a great many letters to the editor - many have questioned the need for the Press to print Stuart's nasty, simple minded and ill informed bigotry. Others have felt to compelled to write in to point out where Stuart has made obvious errors of omission, and worst of all, simple errors of fact.
Perhaps the Press continued to publish her columns because they attracted 'controversy'. I am glad they have finally realised not all 'controversy' is good 'controversy', especially when it turns out their columnist is not only a charlatan - she is also plain lazy.