During the recent Henry Miller trial at Suffolk County Courthouse, the Boston papers came up with some disturbingly incompetent coverage which resulted from sloppiness and practically no concern for the trial. And on a more puerile level, coverage suffered from the ridiculous "get-Harvard-and-all-those-red-intellectuals" prejudice which has periodically spotted the Boston press.

A sophisticated trial involving the important cultural problem of the ethical-esthetical balance between society and the arts, it received no foremention from the Boston press, and only limited coverage during the proceedings.

To the Boston press, apparently, Harvard and intellectuals were on trial, not the Tropic of Cancer. In an ostensibly proletarian, circulation - conscious fashion, reporters picked away at piddling points that might make Harvard or eggheads look foolish.

On the second day of the trial, for example, the distinction was made between reading by "literary people" and "ordinary people," the former allegedly finding artistic value in the book and the latter not. Because the four-letter words are so undeniably prevalent in the book, the prosecuting attorney probed the relationship between four-letter words and learned people. He asked Professor Bloomfield of Harvard, "Have you ever heard four letter words in the Faculty club?"

"No, I haven't," was the reply, and the next day a long and bold eight-column banner headline in a Boston paper anounced, "No Four-Letter Words in Faculty Club, Prof. Says." This was one way of viewing the trial, but certainly not the most honest.

With sideline-coverage of this type, misslanting and emphaszing minor points, the Boston papers--with surprising regularity--offer an unpredictable threat of twist news events and stifling honest communication.