BRITISH PRESS AND KING EDWARD

Manawatu Times, Volume 62, Issue 37, 13 February 1937, Page 17 (Supplement)

BRITISH PRESS AND KING EDWARD

Restraint Justified

p If now generally known that Bri-

tish newspapers did not follow the example of the American Press by printing sensational stories about King Edward and Mrs. Simpson. Wan this censorship justified f Here is one answer from the “Church Times,” which •ays:— “The attitude of the British Press has been a model to the world. The struggle for freedom of the Press is one which will Dot readily be forgotten. But that freedom is a gift which its recipients know they must not abuse. “In those months there was no newspaper office in the country where the King’s desire was not known, and few where it was not watched with 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 story 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 which all reserve was thrown to the winds. “Without exception, from “The Times** to the “Daily Worker,’* every British newspaper declined to follow that example. Not one word of the grave issu »s pending was allowed to appear in print until it was absolutely necessary; and then it was done, except in a lew cases, with a decorum which reflects the greatest credit on everybody concerned. “This was not the result of a Press censorship, such as exists in Germany, or of any pressure from Court or Cabinet. No such censorship exists here, and there was no pressure of any kind. The reticence of the British newspapers was entirely voluntary. “They were free to publish the news—no power could have prevented them—but they did not choose to misu*e their freedom. Even more fig* nificant is the fact that this reticence has been wholly approved by their readers. There has been no outcry among the reading public that important news was withheld from them. They have fully recognised the pro- ; priety of such news being withheld until its release was inevitable. “The power of the Press has been defined as the power to suppress, and it is universally admitted that in the present crisis this power has been exercised in the public interest.** “Oar Washington Correspondent, ” •ays the “Morning Post,” in epito-' mising the comments of the Press in * the United State*, pointed out that the self-control which the British people have manifested in this ordeal is widely regarded in America as evidence of something “bordering on callousness*; and one eminent publicist amiably suggests that this nation of shop-keepers is chiefly concerned about the loss of profits to be filched from American and other visitors at the time of the Coronation.

“Presumably the persons who writ#* and circulate such things believe them, but what a monstrous misrepresentation of the truth, as we in this country know it!”

“To a largo part of the American public, apparently, this seems only our characteristic British hypocrisy,” says the “Manchester Guardian.” “Tt would have the affairs of the heart conducted in the manner of Hollywood. But, although none of us can deny that cant uud false Bontiment have been present amongst us in fair measure, the common feelings are rational and logical.

“We have a constitutional monarchy 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 Ministers the Crown cannot be allowed to prevail. Though it may seem to be harsh doctrine in a case like the present it is the only tolerable one.** “A United States correspondent here,” states the London correspondent of the “Manchester Guardian,” “throws some light on the difference of his fellow-countryman’s view from the views held here. “He says that he finds much the same surprise among all his American friends here. “In the United States divorce is taken to be a reasonable device for adjuslng human relationships which doo3 not necessarily reflect discredit on either party. Even among Americans who have no need of the divorce courts themselves, or would not report to them because of thpir personal religious beliefs, divorce is such a common thing that little is thought of it. Because of this, he is convinced that tho average United 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 made a visit to Paris, where Balzac had achieved his greatest success. At a banquet held in the Englishman’s honour, an author proposed a toast to the “greatest story-teller of his age.” Diekins listened quietly, then stood up and said, “In the name of Balzac, I thank you.”