Censorship in Britain and New Zealand

Manawatu Times, Volume 69, Issue 56, 9 March 1944, Page 5

Censorship in Britain and New Zealand

;« Directer on Alleged I . Inaccuracies i- __ (Per Tress Association.) c WELLINGTON, Marcli 8. II Commenting on tne cabled statement by three New Zealand editors at pre;i sent in Britain the Director of Publicity (Mr. J. T. Paul) states: r “The joint opinion on censorship of I the three editors of New Zealand I newspapers now in the United Kingdom cabled from Loudon and published in the daily Press demands consideration >' by everyone interested in the efficient 1 administration and most successful conduct of the war. As one conversant . with the machinery and processes of , Press censorship in both countries, it is ; my duty to point out that many of the statements made by the three gentiey men are factually inaccurate and that therefore their conclusions must be , accepted with appropriate reservations. I ‘ Their most definite statement by e way of comparison is in these words: ‘The censorship or newspapers in New t Zealand is compulsory. In Britain it is r voluntary. In New Zealand certain € classes of matter which are designated - by the censor must be submitted to and v -ipproved by him before publication. In c Britain the newspapers need submit i nothing. ’ n “ ‘Voluntary’ censorship in Britain means in practice that scores of ‘stops’ and ‘releases’ are regularly issued by i the Controller of Press Censorship or i by the Chief Press Censor of the Minis- - try of Information. These are all : marked ‘confidential not for publlcav tiou.’ They cover matter which may not be published and specify other J* matter which must be submitted for ‘ censorship and suggest that certain £ other matter should be carefully / scrutinised. Some are in the ‘request’ ; category in line with New Zealand f practice. In support of my assertion copies of these may be inspetced by any j accredited pressmen at my office. r “ ‘Compulsory’ censorship in New , Zealand in operation means that certain ?, matter must be submitted for censor--3 ship just as certain matter must be . submitted under the so-called ‘volunj tary’ censorship in the United Kingr doni. In New Zealand the measure of . voluntary censorship (‘honour or iu--1 ternal censorship if you will) is imt measurably greater than the ‘compul- > sory’ censorship. 1 “There are leading daily newspapers -in New Zealand which do not submit 2 on the average one item per week for ; censorship. The regulations are clear - and after four and a-half years of war 3 pressmen should know what published 1 information will or will not help tho ) enemy. Editors declare that the i censorship in the United Kingdom is t good. The censorship in the United - Kingdom as in New Zealand is based on commonsense and fairness, but that ) does not prevent periodical outbursts of i hostile Press criticism and it has not t prevented organised agitations for r changes of Ministers of Information in the United Kingdom. In Britain, so the ’ visiting New Zealand editors tell us, • there is no censorship for policy as > opposed to security. The New Zealand • Press informed its readers that during ' one of the more recent agitations • against the administration of censor- ; ship in Britain that ‘Mr. E. C. Castle, ‘ night news editor of the Daily Mirror, ! declared that 60 per cent, of his work and that of his colleagues was being | suppressed. There is deliberate, definite ! and damnable censorship of opinion ; going on, he declared.’ “Editors have had much to learn and the lessons sometimes have had to be learned in difficult J circumstances. I would say that both should keep on learning, remembering j the words of Mr. Brendon Bracken, British Minister of Information, that j ‘censorship is no simple art. Any fact I may be news and any fact from a country at war may be of some value to the enemy. A shortage of this or that, a strike here—all such fact 3 are watched for by the enemy.’ * ‘ Coming nearer home, may I conclude with the closing sentence of a recent leading article in one of New Zealand’s most responsible dailies: ‘Words cannot win wars but they can 1 go a long way towards losing them.’ Of all words the published word may be ' the most dangerous as a conveyor of 1 information of value to the enemy. • There is a very sound case for New Zealand censorship in law and prac--1 tice. some day, too, the full story of the helpful cooperation between the New Zealand Press and the censorship will be told. A few editors publicise : tbe censor as a nuisance—fortunately many regard him as a cooperator with .them in furthering the national war effort. ’ *