MUZZLING THE PRESS

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 45, 16 November 1937, Page 4

MUZZLING THE PRESS

, Last week it was reported that a caucus of Labour members had passed a resolution calling for legislation requiring tliat all newspaper articles and correspondence dealing "with political subjects shonld be signed by; the actual writer and in his own name. Since then the Prime Minister has been asked whether practical effect is to be given to this resolution, but so far he has declined to give any definite answer, replying with the "wait and see" that is so customary with him. However, the mere fact that the raatter is under consideration yrarrants some little preliminary reference to it. In^the first place, it has to be asked what purpose, good or bad, is likely to be Served by any sueh compulsory legislation. • It may be said at once and with confidcnce, with regard to matter written within the walls of newspaper offices, that if Mr Savage thinks the proposed measure will stifle legitimate criticism, whenever called for, of himself, his colleagues and his party, then he is doomed to very serious disappointment. Then as to individual correspondence, what does it really matter that the identity of the writer should be disclosed? [What , is of real importance is the cogency of the arguments that are adduced, and that is just as strong or as weak over a pen-name as over a personal signature. The only advantage the Government might gain would be that the true signature would place it in a position, in one or other of the many surreptitious ways open to it, to penalise the writer for his audacity in'cjriticising it, and probably that is one of'the things that are mainly in mind. This Government has introduced so many new notions of its own, both in legislation and administration, that it has necessarily laid itself open to more than'the usual volume of ~ corriment and criticism, all doubtless very much to the good in the way of arousing publie interest and opening the eyes .of the people to what is really going on and the objects in ultimate view. As complete novices in the business of government Mr Savage and his colleagues have naturally been yery sensitive to all this, have loudly resented it, and have tried to stifle it by threats, veiled and other.wise. At the same time, however, we fancy they would be very hard put to it | to adduce instances in which they have been denied the opportunity of reply through the same" channels. Generally speaking, indeed, there has nevep been a Government in this country that has been afforded greater gratuitous press facilities than this one for puttiag forth its views and for spreading its propaganda. So much is this the case, indeed, that readers liave beeome thoroughiy cloyed with the wearisome repetitions and reiterations their newspapers have had to subipit to them. Now, let us have a look at the other side of the picture. The Government has reauced into its own sole and arbitrary .control the means of eh'cu'a'ing news and views over the a;ir and boasts in this respect of bringing what it pleases into some 200,000 bouseholds. So far as Parliament is concerned, the radio may be said to work with relative fairness, recording the speeehes eoniing from both sides. But even there attentive listeners cannot but have detected little tricks by which adyantage is given to Government speakers Letting that pass, however, we come to the summaries of parliamentary proceedings that are broadcast daily and weekly. Doubtless the great majority of listeners take it for granted that tliese are compiled by some disinterested hand and therefore give both sides a fair showing. But, under pressure, Mr Savage has had to confess that they emanate from his own office and are issued tlnder'his own eye, the inference being obvious. [When this admission was made the Leader of the Opposition suggested that it would be a fair thing to permit of his seeing these summaries before transmission and supplementing them wilh his sidl of the questions touched npon. That very reasonable request was curtly, but far from courteously, refused. Then, again, as affecting the farmers, the Minister of Marketing has made very free use of the radio to emphasise the fine things he has done for them. But when the Farmers' Union sought leave to put" their case over the air, as allowed by the previous Government, it was, according to a vice-pr6si-dent, either again a case of refusal or of the imposition of crippling restrictions. The Government 's proposal has not even thie merit of novelty, for the same thing was tried in Australia a quarter of a century ago — and by a Labour Government, too, which by the way, went out at the elosely following election. Mr. Savage has also another prpcedent npon which to go, inasmuch as Mr Aberhart, the Social Credit Premier of Alberta (Canada), has .attempted something of the same kind, perhaps not a very flattering or encouraging association of ideas.