British and New Zealand Censorships Compared

Manawatu Times, Volume 69, Issue 54, 7 March 1944, Page 5

British and New Zealand Censorships Compared

(By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.; Received Tuesday 12.20 a.m. LONDON, March. 6. A day by day perusal of the manner in which British newspapers report the war activities at home and abroad is instructive to a New Zealander. Three editors of New Zealand newspapers now in the United Kingdom find that although this country has been for nearly four and a half years much closer than New Zealand to the enemy, a greater degree of freedom is enjoyed by the press here. In their opinion this is partly attributable to the traditions oi freedom which are older and stronger in Britain than in any other country ana to the pervasive and refreshing atmosphere of tolerance. In part also it is attributable to the different conception of censorship. The censorship of newspapers in New Zealand is compulsory. In Britain it is voluntary. In New Zealand certain classes of matter designated by the censor must be submitted to and approved by him before publication, in Britain the newspapers need submit nothing. The voluntary submission oi matter for censorship is regarded in tne nature of an insurance against a violation of security, and censorship in consultation with service and other departments is enabled to guide the press to what is not publishable from the viewpoint of security. It is in effect an “honour” system. There are three striking differences between the censorship system in Britain and New Zealand. Firstly; Whereas in New Zealand a newspaper commits an offence if *t disobeys even unwittingly a censorship instruction, in Britain the editor who does not choose to abide by the cuts made by the censorship does not necessarily commit an offence. The official attitude is that he merely asked for expert advice and if he ignores such advice it must still be proved against him that he has in fact published matter valuable to the enemy. In the whole period of the war to date there have been only two prosecutions. Secondly: In Britain there is no censorship for policy as opposed to security. Guidance memoranda are issued from time to time by the Controller of Press and Censorship giving authentic background information on current events and it is left to the judgment of editors to publish matter relating to policy a 3 they think fit. Thirdly: In Britain the newspapers may indicate plainly that the censorship has operated or is operating in respect of specific matters. Thus a war correspondent in Italy may indicate what—for the time being—he is prevented from reporting. In New Zealand it is an offence to indicate in any way that any matter has been or has been required to be submitted to censorship or has been cut by the censor. Another difference of importance concerns the reprinting of news or articles published abroad. In Britain if a message come from a neutral country it is assumed that the enemy can learn of it directly while if it come from an Allied country it is assumed that the local censorship has passed it and that in any case an attempt by the British censorship to stop it would be futile. In New Zealand these assumptions are not made.

The foregoing observations concern information intended for publication within the United Kingdom. All news and articles intended for publication outside the United Kingdom are subject to compulsory censorship as in New Zealand.