Sunday 10 June, 2007
Meanjin controversy continues
Here are some links to letters/articles about the controversy surround Meanjin and Melbourne University Press. Crikey ran a piece last Wednesday, stating that MUP was involved in a conflict of interest. Simon Hughes wrote, in part, 'Louise Adler is CEO of Melbourne University Publishing. She is also on the board of Meanjin, the little magazine with a big history that punches well above its weight. MUP is keen to subsume Meanjin so that the masthead is married to the MUP logo. So why isn't Adler's balancing act not coming in for closer attention?
"It is something we have found puzzling," says Meanjin editor Ian Britain mildly.'
You'll find a letter from me, and others, at Crikey last Thursday. There were some more letters on the Friday - including one from Ken Gelder arguing vigorously against Ian Britain's postion. 'There were no darker motives here. We wanted, and still want, to see this journal survive and thrive. This was never a "take-over" by MUP (which, I would think, would never make money out of the journal): that is just one of many daft points in Simon's muddled article.'
As well, the Age ran a piece by Peter Craven last Wednesday, and The Australian made a contribution to the debate on the Thursday (both papers arguing against Meanjin's move to MUP).
I have discussed the issue of an online Meanjin with Ian Britain (I think there should be one), and he says his concern was that the magazine would become online ONLY. Louise Adler is now stating that the print version would continue if the magazine moved to MUP. It was reported yesterday that Melbourne University's Vice-Chancellor Glyn Davis was intervening in the row and a meeting to discuss the magazine's future was to be set.
Permanent Link for this Article
Views from the Floor
Miss Eagle says:
As one who cannot afford to be among the 2000 subscribers to Meanjin (but would like to peek) and can't manage the wherewithal for the QE or the Griffith Review, I empathise with Britain but wonder if all the little magazine bit is a tad precious and esoteric. Debating colons and semi-colins in a hallway for half an hour? Dear Ian, there is a world beyond the front door! I can understand wanting to keep Meanjin literary and not mix politics as some do; I can understand that if choices are made to go in one direction it can bring undesirable consequential choices. However I don't see or hear that Britain has ideas for increasing readership or seeing that the little magazine receives a wider and more diverse audience. Can MUP guarantee to increase readership and make Meanjin more accessible without losing its unique qualities?
Leave a remark: