MUZZLING THE PRESS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1595, 12 November 1912, Page 3

MUZZLING THE PRESS.

PROTEST AGAIMST THE SIGNED ARTICLE. A DEPUTATIONA protest against tho prQVisions of the CommonTOjilth Electoral Act, affecting newspapers was nindo recently by a deputation representing the Country Press Associations of Australia, which waited upon the Eederal Minister for External Affairs. The ease for the deputation was ]3ut by Mr. James Byan, of tho New 'South Country Press Association, and he was supported by Messrs. 11. A.. Luke, president of five Victorian Provincial Press Association; Mr.'W. H. Wadd.ell, secretary j Mr. D. V. Leahy, of. the Queensland Country Press Association'; Mr. E. 11. Barnet, president' o'f the South Australian [Provincial Press Association; and.Mr. J. I D. Cant, secretary of that body. ! Mr. Uyan said the deputation was representative of 700 provincial papers in the Commonwealth. Their principal objection was to those sections of the Act requiring the- signing of articles, reports, letters, or other matter by the authors. There w«is some conflict 'of opinion about, the-signing of reports. The JNen* South Wales association had heen advised that only matter which included comment must be signed. .Out of forty or fifty correspondents, he did not believe he could,pet two who would have the temerity to sign their reports, That was a practical effect of the Act. It would hit the country newspaper man more severely than the big man. against whom perhaps tho legislation was aimed. Thoy .would aiuiply have to, shut down on all reports except those that their own staff was available for. That was unfair to tho public, and he complained of it as an undoubted interference with .their business interests. The person sighing had the responsibility without ,t,he. authority. Sub-section % of the same section provided a- penalty'for the editor or proprietor permitting the publication of an. unsigned article, etc. Xo him that looked like a double penalty. It added a ,£SO penalty for an offence for which another penaltv of .£SOO was also provided. Tho "Minister, for External Affairs: The .£SOO was the maximum. It would havcto . be a very strong case, before a fine of i'oOO was imposed. Mr- N Byan;. But fines might be imposed uhdeK'any Of these sections.for a mere oversight, without any intention: at all." Country newspapers'as a whole -were distinguished by the fairness of their reports, tft twouty-four,years' experience he had only one complaint from a politician, and tho electors threw him out. (-Laughter.) He protested- a.aaiust. th« attempt to abolish anonymity, which played ah important part in the moulding of public opinion, i-iy destroying anonymity,they tools away an important phblic right. ) The Minister forHoine Aff.a'ifs (who was also present)': To stab.a roan.in the hack. ■ Mr. Jtyan:. There are-'men who stab people in the back, but numerically they arc very few compared with the..number who write bona-Ma criticisms. If there is. one sinner in twenty,' why should nineteen just men.bs conderoned? It was particularly ''desirable- in this age of evolution that the avenue of public criticism should bo open to the people. The Minister, in reply, -sold that he would lay the representations before the Minister for Home Affairs. As regarded the ■esc>ssiv«iness-''of fine's,, he wished to point out that the penalties mentioned in. tho Act were the maximum, and that a court.of law would adjudicate as,'.to the extent of the misdemeanor. The fine might onljv be a shilling. - Personally,', he was strongly in fav.oiir of the signing..of articles and reports, {r|pd if he had his way, if he were'an autocrat or a Tsari- instead of lessening the requirement of ■ the' Act, ho would go further. He would not allow, letters to go into a. paper unless they were signed. . . If they were not signed, _ tliefs was some f.e'ason why the authors. did not Want their names associated -with them. He would not allow a'newspaper to go through the .post as a newspaper unless every/article was'signed. . While -there should be every opportunity given for.; criticism of Parliament, public men, aihd public movements, such criticism should be carried-;6ut fairly and .squarely. The--experience of the- Werriwa election show! Ed I that the campaign, so far as-the Papers were concerned, was better carjie'd out because-of the : requirement that articles should be signed. '-' , ■ 'Mr. Eyan.: To ""the exclusion' of local correspondents, ...The, Minister: The signing of articles made .'the representatives of the papers .'more..'carefhi qf, n'Tote. He. coilli.'not 'see'' wliy'.'.'.irepiorters should. not sign, , Mr. Leahy: What about telegraphiff reports? How are they going to he signed? Wo cannot take, the risk of a JESOO ponalty. ■'■'' Mr, Waddell pat before the Mimster a ease where a news agency served, both Liberal and Labour papers, and asked it the reporter's' name must he sent to each. ; It appeared to him that such, a man would be black-listed by one or both of the papers.-eventually. - .. Mr. "Ryah.-i.esprcssed the view that the [net result of the Werriwa election was.to cut down publicity by 90 per cent. The Ministry should consider that at .the general elections this result .would he niulti..plied by 70. . - '.-.