I read with interest and chagrin the tiny announcement of the continuing peace vigil on Parliament Hill, in the August issue of the magazine. I am distressed by the listing because, like the Peace Camp before it, the vigil should be getting much more coverage. It is one matter that I am quite disturbed with the peace movement over. It should have received top billing of activities in the Ottawa area.
But I am glad that something is being done on Parliament Hill. Faddish peace camps are too restrictive: Changing the idea to a continuing peace vigil is probably more likely to encourage people to participate. I also think it's once again time to solicit participation from all parts of the country. That might be a more connective activity than hierarchical organization-building.
Also, I want to add to what Greg Bates wrote in the September issue about getting media coverage. We are always encouraged to write to politicians to try to influence their opinions and actions. When we write letters to editors of newspapers we usually have in mind the audience of newspaper readers, not the editors. But we might do well to write more letters that are meant, not for publication, but to influence the editors' policies. Whenever we see bias in the coverage of any media - newspapers, radio, magazines, or television - we ought to be pointing it out and urging a reconsideration. It helps to subscribe to several different publications for purposes of comparison. Then when you find that one publication didn't cover something properly, you can enclose a clipping from the other papers that did a better job, as evidence of the bias to which you are objecting.
Michael Black, Montréal, Québec