Having read the Grapevine’s “Letters to the Editor” of February 5th, 2026
I was left confused with several questions:
- The exchange between Keith Porteous and Dr. Stephen Malthouse does not look like actual Letters to the Editor but more like part of a private conversation?
- If you can confirm that what you have published is actually part of a private exchange, has this been done with Dr. Malthouse’s permission?
- For the sake of objectivity and for the unbiased readers’ wish to form his/her own independent thoughts and opinion, I believe it will be helpful, if not essential to release Dr. Malthouse’s original , uncensored Letter to the Editor that has been denied publication.
- Without proper context, the above mentioned exchange does not make much sense.
Sincerely, Christiane Brown
—————-
Publisher/Editor’s Note:
In support of the clarity Christiane requested, we replied directly to her. As stated in our preamble to Malthouse’s revised letter, we had asked for a revision to his submissions because they violated TIG’s editorial policies. We took his response as his revision.
At no time has Stephen Malthouse requested confidentiality in his correspondence with TIG. Some of his views about indigenous reconciliation efforts are touched on in his revised response to us, but are less explicit than the original.
We will not be publishing his original submission because it violates the TIG’s editorial policies. Anyone can be published in TIG, but we insist they do so within the paper’s guidelines. Everyone who submits content that doesn’t meet the standard of TIG’s EP is offered the opportunity to revise it.
Mike Van Santvoord, Publisher and Editor
