BRITISH PRESS AND KING EDWARD

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 25, 13 February 1937, Page 11

BRITISH PRESS AND KING EDWARD

Restraint Justified

F* now generaHy known that Britisb. newspapers did not follow the example of tlie Amerioan Press hf printing slnsational stories about King Edward and Mrs. Simpson. Was this censorship justified? Here is one answer from the * ' Church Times," which •ays: — ''The attitude of the British Press h&s been & model to the world. £he Btruggle for freedom of the Press is one which will not readily be forgotten. But that freedom is a gift which jtis recipients know they must not •buse. "In those months there was, no newspaper oflice in the country where the King's dcsire was not known, and few where it was not watched witb growing apprehension for its political, •ocial and moral consequences. "Newspapers had in their hands the biggest 'news story' for years. Each editor knew that if he chose to 'break' this stoiy one morning, he could get the greatest 'scoop' of the century and provoke a major constitutional issue. Fleet Street was flooded with magazines and newspapers from abroad in whicn &U reserv© was thrown tn the winds. "Without exception, from "The Times" to the "Dajly Worker," every British newspaper declined to follow that example. Not one word of the grave issu »s pending was allowcd to appear in print xmtil it was absolu^ely necessary; and then it was done, except in a lew casee, with a decorum which reflects the greatest credit on everybody 'concerhed. "This was not the result of a Press eensorship, such as exists in Gormany, or of any pressure from Court or Cabinet. No such conBorship exists here, and there was no pressure of any kind. The reticence' of ihe' British newspapers was entirelv voluntary. - "Thev wero freo to publish tho news — no power could .have preveuted them — but they did not choose to misnse their freedom. Even ' more significant'ia'the -fact that this reticence has "been wholly • approved • by their readeris. / There ' has been no outcry among .the xeading public that impbrtant news wa3 withheld from them. They hqve fnlly recognised the propriety of such. new 3, .beihg withheld nntil its xeleast was inevitable* "The power of the Press has fceen defined as the power to suppress, and it is nniversally admitted that in the present crisis this power has been ex•rcised in the public interest ' ' "Our Washington Correspondent," aays the "Morning Post," in epitomising. the comments of the Press in the TJnited. States, pointed ont that the self-control which the British people have manifested in this ordeal, is widely regaxded in America ais evidence of something "bordering on c.allousness'j and one eminent publicist amiably suggests that this nation o.t shop-keepers is chiefly concerned about the loss of profits to l»e filched from American and other visitors, at the time of the Coronation,

"Presumably the persons who wrlL» and circulate such things believe them, but what a monstrous misrepresentation of the truth, as we in this countrar know itj" "To a largu part of the American public, apparently, this seems only our characteristic British hypocriuy," says the "Manchester Guardian." "Jt would have the affairs of the heart conducted in the manner of Hollywood. But, although none of us can deny that cant and falSe sentiment have been present amongfst us in fair nxwsure, the commcai feelings are rational and logical. ""We have a constitutional monir--chy and "we expect certain things from it. 'The Crown,' as Mr Baldwin reminded the King, 'has been deprived of many of its prerogatives, but. today it stands for far more than it has ever done in history.' It is *not only the last link of Empire that is left," but in its present form an essential part of our democratic government. "When Mr* Baldwin told the King that the country and the Dominions would not approve his marriage proposals the King accepted the verdict. Even had Mr. Baldwin 's counsel been less wise, the mass of British opinion would have said the.same: in a conflict of wills between the Crown and its MRirijsters the Crown cannot be allowed to prevail. Though it muy seem to be harsh doctrine in a case like the present it is the only tolernb',e one." - "A TJnited States correspondent here," states the London' correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian," "throws some light on the difference of his f ellow-countryman 's view from the vlews held here. "He says that he finds.much the same surpri'se among all his American friends here. "In the TJnited States divorce is i taken to be a reasonable device for adjusing human relationships which does not necessaTily reflect discredit on either paTty. Even among Americans who have no need of the divorce courfcs themselves, or would not resort to them. because. of their personal re-. ligious beliefs, divorce is such a common thing that little is thought of it. Because of this, he is convinced that the average TJnited States citizen will never really be able to understand and appreciate the attitude of'the average Briton in this crisis." The fact remains that the British Press refrained- from esnsational methods.

When Charles Dickens was at the height of his fame, he once mad© a visit to Paris, where Balz4c had achieved his greatest succees. At a hanquet held in the Englishman's honour, an author proposed a toast to the "great. est story-teller of his age." " Dic kins listened quietly, then stood . up and said, "In the name of Balzac, I thank you."