Press and Parliament

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21409, 27 February 1935, Page 10

Press and Parliament

Speaking on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, the member for Nelson, Mr H. Atmore, advocated freer use of the " greatest means of " publicity ever known," at present, in his opinion, " stifled in this coun•'try"; and the reason put forward was that " the newspapers give " only one side of the question in " Parliament." To make plain nonsense plainer, Mr Atmore added that " it would be desirable to have both "sides of the argument broadcast " to the people; but the newspapers " are not concerned with giving both " sides." This charge, as also that of distortion and misrepresentation,- is levelled against the press from time to time by members of the Labour party and by the vague, restless figures of political Limbo; and if any reply is necessary it is a very brief one. Substantially, what such complainants demand is that they shall always be reported extensively, and they are vexed because they are not. But the demand is an impossible and absurd one particularly so in being made, as it invariably is, by politicians who travel the country repeating set speeches, whose contributions to debate in the House are also repetitive and discursive rather than to the point, and whose care for party advantage -s often more obvious than their care for the general good. It is a demand, moreover, that no Government has made or could make with the slightest hope of its being granted; for it is, in effect, a demand that the press should cease to use its free judgment, in its position between Parliament and the public, and cease to use its proper skill in the reporting and interpreting of news. When the press must report all that politicians say, no matter of what party, it will have found a new and bad master. At present, in its freedom, it acknowledges a duty of public service, first and last; and the public, which is watchful and harder to confuse than some politicians are tempted to think, knows; that this duty is done. But while so much may be said in general, there are, and always are, ready to hand the most specific and concrete disproofs of such ugly misstatements as Mr Atmore's. Let any reader run his eye oyer the reports of the debates—to say nothing about other discussions —of the Mortgage Corporation Bill and see where the balance falls. Far from being unreported or scantily

reported, Labour and other critics of the bill have occupied much the greater space. That they fully deserved all they received we shall not very positively affirm; but it is almost possible to forget that " The " Press," with the other newspapers, is not being charged with killing these speakers with kindness.