From Mr R. Blyth, FRPharmS
SIR,—I congratulate you upon your leading article drawing attention to
the possibility of a non-pharmacist editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal (PJ,
October 21, p591).
I trust that the Society’s Council will read it and learn from it.
I spent over 35 years in pharmaceutical journalism, 25 of them as editor of
the PJ, and before that studied in some depth the principles and practice of
journalism. Perhaps I can write with some little authority, therefore, on the
demands placed upon the editor of a specialist weekly publication.
Of course, it would be possible to produce the PJ with a non-pharmacist editor,
but it would place an unfair burden upon the pharmacist members of the editorial
team, while leaving the editor at a grave disadvantage. It would not be a recipe
for success, proof of which I have observed during my career.
It was my considered opinion over the years that it was easier to teach a pharmacist
journalism by advice and supervision than to teach a journalist pharmacy, and
that is not to disparage journalism, which requires an extensive knowledge base
of its own and at its best is one of the noblest professions, even if not all
its practitioners are above reproach.
The Council wants The Journal to continue to develop as world-class publication.
How does that square with a non-pharmacist editor? It looks to me like a contradiction
in terms, an oxymoron.
The successful candidate for the post of editor “will ideally be a pharmacist”,
the advertisement tells us. If a pharmacist would be perfect, a non-pharmacist
would be imperfect, deficient, inadequate, defective — choose your own
word.
Robert Blyth
Milton Keynes