PRESS CENSORSHIP

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 200, 22 May 1944, Page 6

PRESS CENSORSHIP

Practice In Great Britain STATEMENT BY DIRECTOR

OF PUBLICITY

The Director of Publicity has issued the foliowins comment on the reply of Messrs. E. V. Dumbleton (Auckland “Star ), M. A. Whitlock (“Hawke’s Bay Heriud-Tn-liune”) and P. H. N. Freeth (Christchurch "Press”), three newspaper editors who formed part of the recent I ress delegation to Great Britain, on the subject of British censorship: “The editors criticiize my reply on account of its length,” said Mr. Paul, and then complain that I omitted essential points in the memorandum which, by the way, runs into some 2000 words, this shows it is impossible and not wholly profitable to discuss within the limits of newspaper space the application of Press censorship in even one country. My reason for not quoting the sub-clauses of the memorandum is simply explained: The three editors declare that the British svstera is wholly voluntary ; my contention is that this interpretation is incorrect and suggests a misreading of the memorandum on which their argument is based. The memorandum discloses that a large measure of compulsory censorship exists, and then declares that matter which comes under voluntary censorship is of several kinds. None of these affects the point at issue, but it was necessary to cite category (f) because it mentioned the news received through news agencies, whether by hand or through tape machines. , .. “The editors appear to under-estimate the volume of Press agency news which British newspapers publish, but in nomt of fact this volume is very large. Many newspapers, including great national dailies, rely on agencies for the bulk ol their news and some carry surprisingly small reporting staffs, the members ot which are principally special writers, bo that in bringing the agencies by means of an agreement under full censorship where the war. directly or indirectly, was involved the censorship secured a large measure of control. Guidance of Censor.

"My disagreement with the editors’ interpretation >is that they declare the United Kingdom system to be wholly voluntary. My point is that, as the. memorandum indicates, it is part compulsory and part voluntary, and that the New Zealand censorship is exactly the same. The point of divergence, as 1 have already explained, is that in theory British newspapers who have sought _ the censor s guidance may, within the limits indicated in the memorandum, ignore it; in New Zealand when the censor has given his decision 1o ignore it is an olteime. . 1 would add that in actual practice British newspapers do not ignore the censors guidance. . , "The editors appear to have overlooked, also, the significance of the defence (.General) Regulations of Regulation 3 of these regulations is titled •General Provisions for Safeguarding information.’ and in addition to prohibiting ihe publication of information on purely military matters, lays down that it is an offence to publish ‘any matter whatsoever information as to which would or might be directly or indirectly useful to our enemv.’ Surely the editors will agree that this provision carries all the comDU 'C November 23. 1939. an Order-in-Council amending the Defence (General) Regulations provided that no person shall ‘endeavour bv means of any false statement. false document or false report to influence public opinion (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the efficient prosecution ot the war.’ . . , Safety of the State.

“Under the same Order-in-Council the Secretary of State is empowered to prevent or restrict publication in the United Kingdom of matters of which the publicatiton or unrestricted publication as the case might be, would or might, ini his opinion, be prejudicial to the relations between the United Kingdom, and any country outside the United Kingdom, or to any transactions in process ot being effected or proposed to be effected l)( ’ His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and persons in any other country . . .’ Here, again, wide powers have been given to a Minister of the Crown in the interests of the safety ofthe State. Would the editors say that this regulation- comes under the category of voluntary censorship. , , , “I hare never hesitated, concluded Mr. Paul, “to discuss with any editor or with any of the Press organizations tne practical application of censorship. My administration has been based on commonsense and co-operation, and Press censorship cannot be satisfactorily applied in any other spirit.”