Today I picked up a copy of Epigram (dated October 25) and was dismayed but not surprised by the deliberately provocative and cheap journalism you have resorted to in favour of balanced and responsible reporting.
I’m specifically referring to your comment pieces for the Hooters breastaurant. [NAME REMOVED] has written a fair and sensible piece stating in a nutshell what she believes to be wrong with Hooters. While [NAME REMOVED] says that “boobies and chicken wings” are better than “vomit”: does she not think anyone will ever vomit outside Hooters?
[NAME REMOVED] asserts that protestors have labelled Hooters girls as prostitutes. As a newspaper editor, I am sure you have sourced the range of printed and valid evidence that you will know you legally require to back up such a slur against the anti-Hooters group, and I would call you to produce it in the light of making such a defamatory statement.
[NAME REMOVED] also digs out a tried reference to “bra burners”. If she had done a little homework she would realise that feminists never burned their bras, and this is a saggy myth brought out by people who know very little about something they have decided to be uptight about.
She makes reference to the “focus on food and a children’s menu”. Yet only paragraphs before she said “I will not attempt to claim that Hooters is a family fun restaurant”. I’m confused about what you think you think, [NAME REMOVED], and I think you are, too.
I will end by repeating a line from [NAME REMOVED]’s column: “This is not harmless.” She writes in reference to Hooters. I repeat it echoing her sentiments about Hooters, but also applying it to Epigram’s negative attitude to its female students. And yes, I noticed the editor and many of the staff are female.