STATESMANSHIP v. THE PRESS. [From the Times].
Destined, as we believe ihe Press to be/ to occupy a position of continually increasing importance, and to exercise a power over the formation oi public ■ opinion compared with "which its present influence is but slight, it is most desirable that a true theory of its duties, responsibilities, and field of action should be enunciated, or, at any rate, that it should not be fettered by the application of erroneous tests and arbitrary principles. The ends which a really patriotic and enlightened journal should have in view are, we conceive, absolutely identical with the ends of an enlightened and patriotic Minister, but the means by which the journal and the Minister work out these ends, and the conditions uuder which they work, are essentially and widely different. The statesman in opposition, must speak as one prepared to take office ; the statesman in office must speak as. one prepared, to act. A speech or a despatch with them is something more than an argument or essay — it is a measuie. Undertaking not so much the investigation of political problems as the conduct of political affairs, they, are necessarily not so much' seekers after truth as expediency. The press, on the other hand, has no. practical function ; it works, out the end* it basin view by argument and. discussion alone, and being perfectly, unconnected! with administrative or executive duties, may and must roam at free will over topics which men of political action dare not touch. # Were the press to be, as Lord Derby, wishes to see it, confined within the same narrow limits as practical statesmen, it would lose at once its power and elasticity, and sink into a dull chronicle of passing events. It is because it can discuss things which political men in buckram must not assail, and throw off the conventional tone which they are or believe themselves forced to employ, that the press is able to give a support to liberty and justice which we should seek in vain from the most liberal Government. Government must treat other Governments with external respect, however black their originor foul their deeds ;, but happily the press is under no such trammels, and while diplomatists are exchanging courtesies,, can unmask the. mean heart that beats beneath a star, or point out the bloodstains on the hatfd' which grasp's a sceptre.
The duty of the journalist is the same as that of . the historian, -^-to seek out the 'truth, above all # tliings, and to present, to his readers, not such things as statecraft would wish ' them to know, hut the .truth, as near ai he can attain it. To reqnire, then, the journalist and the statesman to conform to ihe same rules, is to mix up things essentially different, and.it is .as unsound in theory as unbeard-of in practice. Lord Derby tells us that the internal administration of accounts is a matter of convenience and arrangement for that country, alone ; that we have never felt it oar duty to protest against any form of internal government in France, and that f _therefore, w.e have no right to canvass either the policy or morality of every step which has been taken. As regards statesmen this is true ; at regards journalists it is utterly false ; it^is not only pur right, but our duty to discnss the policy and morality of the steps w,bkh have been taken, to look at them in every possible point of view,, and to extract from them every inference of which they are capable. The free press of- Europe, tolong as there was a free press, exercised the same right towards us, without offence and without question." The press does not, as Lord Derby says, aspire to exercise the influence' of statesmen, but its own, and reserves that respect which Lord Derby is content to profess for a sanguinary and unscrupulous despotism for some-" thing more respectable than absolute power and brute force. We do not intetfere with the duties of statesmen ; our vocation is, in one respect, inferior to theirs, for we are unable to wield the power or represent the collective dignity of the country ; but in another point of view it is superior, for, unlike them, we are able to speak the whole truth without fear or favour. Yet, in discussing French politics we have never assumed a tone *so offensive as that which the Earl of Derby has introduced into his homily. We have never said that for the last sixty years the Government of France has been a succession of usurpations of one kind or another, and then contradicted ourselves and libelled our neighbours by stating that these usurpations were, one and all, the deliberate choice of the nation, or, still worse, that the extraordinary powers of the French President have been conferred upon him by the most unanimous expression of the public opinion of France. Such statements are indeed insulting to French honour and nationality. Those who make them and believe them treat the gallant French nation as a race of slaves, barely competent for the choice of the tyrant who is to trample on them. In their respect for rank and power they transfer the crimes of a guilty individual to an innocent people. We would rather believe that Frenchmen have, like Englishmen, a love of liberty and a hatred of tyranny ; that their rights baye been surprised and wrenched from them by fraud and violence ; and that the vote which we are called upon to respect was extorted by terror and the misrepresentations of a press drilled in Lord Derby's, own school, to echo in parrot notes the tone of the dominant class of French statesmen. Which of the two is more just to our neighbours it is for the public to judge, but we cannot take leave of Lord Derby without expressing our apprehension that he would be a more tolerable censor of the press had its shafts been levelled at the license of republics instead of the excesses of despotism. It is strange that in the same speech in which he so emphatically denies the right oi one country to canvass the institutions of another, Lord Derby goes out of his way to insult the only sincere and trustworthy ally we have left, by telling the United States that they enjoy far less liberty than ourselves, and that the tyranny of a majority there is worse than the despotic rule of other countt ies. We hope that the next time the Earl of Derby condescends to administer a lecture' to the press he will set us a better example of the prudence and moderation which he preaches, and not, as in this instance, first cruelly defame the nation which he undertakes to defend, and then seek an opportunity for ungracious and injurious comments on our most valuable ally. We trust also that he will not wholly forget, while dealing out his, censures on the press, that the utmost flights and vagaries of a newspaper fall immeasurably short of that intemperance in language in which it has sometimes been his delight to indulge at the expense of his political opponents, and which has converted many a debate in the House of Commons into something little more dignified than a prize-fight. Of Lord Grey we have liitfe to say ; for, after adopting every word of Lord Derby's indiscretions and contradictions with an unqualified concurrence, he expressed his opinion that the duty of every individual in his private capacity was to obstain from all interference in, that is — from all discussion of, the" internal politics of France. His lordship was, moreover, indignant, and declared that, though the newspapers might express the opinions of those who write in them, they do notexjiKM^JHMHHlimfaMh
re. aw icr x>ld re, »y ire )St on no rst °g sis of ill or by a no ed be te a an a as of »P rt is lie ts iis 1. D d n >f
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZSCSG18520818.2.13
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VIII, Issue 735, 18 August 1852, Page 4
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,333STATESMANSHIP v. THE PRESS. [From the Times]. New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VIII, Issue 735, 18 August 1852, Page 4
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.