Here's the letters column in the Weekend Australian two Saturdays ago.

Mark Scott and Stephen Conroy may seem like strange bedfellows, but they share one characteristic in common with many who combine ambition with acute self-belief. Both refuse to utter the word sorry. — The Weekend Australian, 1-2 March, 2014

It was a familiar riff on a favourite tune.

But to one man it sounded a little off key.

Because the printed letter didn't match the version Peter Farrell of Monarto had emailed to the paper.

Here's the original. See if you can spot the difference.

Sorry trio Mark Scott, Stephen Conroy and John Howard may seem like strange bedfellows. But they share one characteristic, in common with many who combine soaring ambition with acute self-belief. All refuse to utter the word "sorry". — Peter Ferrell, Email to the Australian, 28th February, 2014

Well, fancy that. Whatever happened to our former Prime Minister?

Sorry John Howard, but you went missing in action.

And it was not just a slip of the pen, because the word All was also changed to Both.

Reading the paper's shortened version over his cornflakes, Peter Farrell was so upset he fired off a complaint .

Yesterday (Friday Feb 28) I sent the letter below, headed "Sorry trio". The version published today has reduced it to a duo, with the reference to John Howard removed. I am very annoyed about this; it has completely altered the point of the letter. The intent of the original was to imply that both sides of politics, as well as the media, have difficulty apologising. The edited version implies that this only applies to the left. — Peter Farrell, Email to the Australian, 1st March, 2014

Good heavens ... you don't think that's why the Australian rubbed John out, do you?

But as Peter Farrell observed, it did rather look that way.

I'm not a political person; I don't particularly support either side. You have misrepresented my position. It's also hard for me to understand exactly why the reference to John Howard was removed, without leaping to uncharitable conclusions. Any explanation? — Peter Farrell, Email to the Australian, 1st March, 2014

Six days later, Peter Farrell had heard nothing from The Australian. Not a dicky bird.

Nor had there been a correction in the paper.

So, on Friday, Media Watch wrote to letters editor Graeme Leech, who told us :

Yes, John Howard's name was edited out ... — Graeme Leech, Letters Editor, The Australian, email response to Media Watch questions, 7th March, 2014

Well, well, well. How extraordinary. And what was the reason for that?

... because he has been out of office for more than six years whereas Scott and Conroy are still in the public eye over whether or not they should apologise. — Graeme Leech, Letters Editor, The Australian, email response to Media Watch questions, 7th March, 2014

Come on Mr Leech. You have to be kidding.

You can't just doctor a letter to the editor like that. It's not on.

And nor is Peter Farrell persuaded that The Australian's reason for removing the former Liberal PM is the real one.

It seems obvious to me that the letter was edited so it fell completely and unambiguously into line with their current editorial position - i.e. anti-Labor, anti-ABC. People at the Oz should realise that just because someone subscribes to their paper (which I do), it doesn't necessarily mean they are happy to be portrayed as another right-wing warrior (which I'm not). — Peter Farrell, email to Media Watch, 7th March, 2014

The Australian has recently castigated Media Watch for so-called 'selective editing'.

Well, really, you can't get much more selective than that.