The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, OCT. 31, 1906.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1919, 31 October 1906, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, OCT. 31, 1906.

liie Public Petitions’ Committee of the House of llepresentatives has reported on a petition praying for enquiry into the methods of the Press Association, and has recommended that the methods of tbs Agency should be referred to a select committee of the Houso for investigation. Upon this report a discussion took place in which members expresssd their opinions in regard to the class of news supplied to the affiliated newspapers by the Association, and the grievance of thorn members appears to be confined

to one point,, viz, that the political news telegraphed does not fit in exactly with the interests of the particular members who complained. Prom

he tone of the discussion it must be assumed that if the Association had pleased everybody as some newspapers that are under the influence of politicians are trying to do, there would have been no complaint about the methods of the Association, and consequently there would be no petition referred to a select committee for en~ quiry. If thiß does not mean that there is to be a distinct attempt on the part of somebody to transform the Association from an independent body into ouo of servility to one political

section, wo do not know what is moniit by tho adopted move. Ono on- I lightened member coinplainod that a i eertnin resolution of a Farmers’ Union had not boon tolographod from a placo that does not poasoaa a nowapapor or a representative of tho Aasooiation, and others did not think that the roports of tho Association sent on other topics wore just what thoy would havo sent thomsedves had they boon tho Assocmtion’s Agonts. All this goes to show

that tho Association is expected to ho most woofully ono-sidod and absolutely froo from bias at ono and tho same time. It is expoctod to do an irnpossiblo thing or havo its methods enquired into. JNow, if thoro is any ono who has a causo to grumble at the methods of tho Press Association it is tho newspapers that publish its nows ; but that grumblo could not bo founded

upon any allegation of one-sidedness. It would bo merely a complaint that too much pi Hie iB sont through that is of nothing more than local intorost, while sometimes important items that would bo of interest aro neglected. But before making any such complaint one lias to recognise tho dillicultios of tho management in arranging for a proper supply of nows. The Association’s Agents in tho various towns aro pressmen who aro employed in newspaper cilices, who geo a small yearly stipend lor the oxtra trouble imposed upou them in addition to their ordinary work, and tho amount paid is totally inadequate for tho time and trouble involved in tho work ; nor can it well be otherwise without iucreasing the subsidies paid by tho newspapers to the Association, and thoy. are already as high as the circumstauces will warrant. The manager’s instructions (printed in pamphlet form so that each agent can carry them in his pocket for reference) are that reports must be quite impartial, and that no side, either in politics, religion, or anything else shall be dealt with unfairly. What more can the Association do to ensure unbiassed reports, and what more, may we also ask, can a committee of the House do in the matter unless it seta up a censorship a la .Russia to supervise the messages before distribution to the newspapers ? Perhaps that is what is being aimed at, for a censor of press messages, appointed by the Government, of course, could render incalculable benefit to the party in power. He could, in fact, wield the destiny of any political party, and exercise a very strong, if undesirable, sway in financial and business matters also. Hitherto the Press Association has got along very well without im* porting any political bias into its reports worth speaking of, and where they have been noticed they have beon severely censured ; but once we allow the interference of a Parliamentary Committee in this respect who can say that that honorable record can be preserved? We are particularly concerned in this matter for we recognise in the attempted interference the possibility of a plot (if it does not already exist) to muzzle the independence of the Press, which has rightly been described as ‘‘the sheet anchor of our liberties,” but once it is suborned to the dictates of a Parliamentary Committee we may say good-bye to its usefulness and independence, because if the Press of the colony is not independent it cannot be useful. It is desirable that the public for its own safety should recognise that fact too, and cease to support any spineless trimmer in the shape of a newspaper that is ready to gush and flatter everyone and everything in the hope of increasing its subscribers’ list or adding one more advertisement to its columns. The paper that will thus sell its birthright for a mouthful of crumbs, or neglect

to point out error whenever it is discovered, if the doing of it would serve the public interest, even though it may offend a patron or two, is not worthy of respect or support, To their shame it may be said that there are newspapers that rank under that category, but fortunately thoy are few. Thoy would not perhaps sell themselves in a straight-out bargain, but they are ever ready to oblige in order to be obliged without regard to principle or the honorable traditions of their calling, and if ono of these happen to secure the agency for press messages one can well understand that the management of the Association may not be responsible for what occurs in the way of biassed reports. Yet, taken as a whole, there is l’ttle cause for complaint or the interference of a Parliamentary Committee, as far as the Associatiou is concerned, for the manager has his eyes open, and he is a man whom no Parliamont will shake or cause to deviate from the path of rectitude.