The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. SATURDAY, DEC. 7, 1907. REUTER: GOOD ADVOCATE BUT BAD REPORTER.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2057, 7 December 1907, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. SATURDAY, DEC. 7, 1907. REUTER: GOOD ADVOCATE BUT BAD REPORTER.

At t-lie time when so much indignation was being heaped upon GVLr. [veir Bardie in'connection with certain statements of a seditious character which it was alleged he had made in ludi i, we suggested that in view of the contradictory nature of the reports published it would bo as well to first ascertain what the English Labor leader really did say before talking of excluding him from the Dominion. Subsequent events have -fully, justified this attitude, and it would now appear that Air. Tlardio was grossly misrepresented. On this subject the “Manchester Guardian” of October 5 said: 'The contradictions in the news from India this week have been very remarkable, and it was never more important than now, when tlie English people have need -to be forming some views ivbout our 'future [policy there, that we should have news that will not subside when -we begin to build upon it. . . . What Air. /Iveir Bardie really said we know -from his own telegram -to the Daily ‘Mail,’ from w. telegram sent by the ! Calcutta correspondent of the Tn- : bunoi -and -also -from a telegram published! -from Reuter’s correspondent to-day. Ho had drawn a -parallel between the Bengal Government and that of Russia only in so far _as concerned tlie übiquity of the police and the suppression of -public meetings; the paiallel with Armenia had to do solely with the violation of Hindu women by Alohammedan rowdies; and as for colonial government, he liad said that that was tho ultimate goal,'not -an immediate object or right. These explanations may not make Air. Iveir Hardie’s speech discreet, but they acquit him of using wild words and rhetorical exaggeration. '.Reuter’s correspondent either did - not know the context of Air. Hardie’s parallels or deliberately suppressed it, in which case ho was inflaming English opinion; -and, what is more, when Air. Bardie re-, turned to Calcutta ho was so careless or so prejudiced that he -again neglected to give tho context, and represented,'Mr. Bardic's explanations as an exultant justification. Nor is this tho first time by -any imeaus that Reuter’s correspondent, lias been -accused of political misrepresentation ; it is not long since wo published a letter from six Calcutta editors complaining of the prejudiced character of his news; but this particular instance, being a personal and simple one, is particularly instructive. It shows that Reuter’s, correspondent is a man who sees only two colors, black and white, and that his telegrams are, therefore, not to bo trusted as a foundation for judgments in politics, whose colors in” India, as hero, are mostly greys and browns. This is a very serious matter indeed, for Reuter’s telegrams are the only materials for opinion on Indian -affairs that most people have, -and they are the telegrams -mainly read. largely because tb • Ag-.-ncy has tlie reputation ot bei”g cvieeriK-d with the dissemination only of new::, rind not of views. V; ben no obviously tendeucious -telcgiam .anneal's in a strong, party org>;i tlie reader is on bis guard, -and lias a chance of correcting the perspective. The announcement that a telegram comes .through Reuter’s Agency gives no such warning, but lulls suspicion. The country is, in fact, in danger of having its opinions oil India warped by a slow, steady drip of prejudiced news, -as it was in "South Africa. In South A fine t the problem of news collecting was excessively -difficult, for the whole -business was in., .the bands of a- .wealthy body of .men who were .determined that there should -be no reconciliation, and the Home Government was snore’ or less in sympathy with them. The conditions -are surely not so bad in India, nor is the India Office committed to a policy which would make satisfaction’ of legitimate Indian demands impossible.”