THE PRESS AS AN INFLUENCE IN NEW ZEALAND POLITICS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2896, 15 September 1909, Page 83

THE PRESS AS AN INFLUENCE IN NEW ZEALAND POLITICS.

By Lavengbo.

(Read v at club, August 24.) It is a significant fact that New Zealand pressmen have figured largely at the Empire ir'ress Conference concluded in London during this month. I dare not suggest that this was possibly on account of a matter purely political, and on which the press exercised merely a professional veto. The Press Conference was undoubtedly a step towards a wider imperialism, but a greater and more effective tribute was paid to national patriotism by our Pare-mier, Sir J. G. Ward, when he presented Great Britain with a battleship of the Dreadnought type. Harold Begbie, an English journalist of note, has written a magnificent ode, in which he characterised the visiting jouraxalists as shepherd's. He askr Btitannia to "Proudly go down to gather from the sea This bana of brothers, this goodly company; The shepherds of flocks beyond thy sight, Who eerve thee day and night." A sublime ideal, no doubt, but whether Ihe verse touches the ideal rather the real is for us to discover. It is therefore necessary ior us to take a backward glance over our oonatitutional history of the last decade or lcora, and endeavour to discover the position held by our leading politicians during that period, and the relative position occupied by the New Zealand press. Carjyle hap said that the history of the world is the : history of its great men, and to ihe political arena of New Zealand this dictum can be applied to its last degree of meaning. For our history of the last 15 years is nothing, more or leas than the lifeatories of its most dominant politicians. About IA years ago R. J. Seddon became Premier of the Dominion, and from the moment- he took .in hand*, the reins of office until his death he was literally the uncrowned king -of the country, the autocrat at our legislative breakfast table, the colossus who bestrided this land while the rank and file of the . executive walked in his shadows to find themselves dishonourable graves. To recall the "many instances in which Mr Seddon exhibited robust initiative, characteristic audacity, and unique personality would in-*o!ve' considerable space, trend to much time, but to no particular purpose. However, we all know how largely the figure of this modern empire-builder loomed on our political horizon. He was never afraid to further his own :laims, and as an example I remember on one occasion when he was welcomed by leading citizens at the Invercargill Railway Station Mr Seddon, drawing himself up to his full height (he was standing on an improvised platform, and gave the impression of being over 7ft high), turned to the curious onlookers whose spirit of hero-worship had bid them face a drenching rain, *nd uttered with the greatest gusto and, as I thought, with as little sense of humour as a man has ever possessed : "Ladies and Gentlemen, it is not very often that the people of this town have a chance of meeting their master face to face." This is surely a key with which it is only too easy to unlock the casket which hides the mystic talisman of a great stalesman's success. We may gaze at the talisman, but I am afraid will gain nothing from the .exercise. Without humour and without eloquence, he' w« still an opportunist, but only successful bacau;e he posseesed a. dominating personality.- Analysis proves nothing. H. was Seddon; he was New Zealand politics.. He t counted no one else, and, accordingly, " no one else counted. Ho fought many, battles, but lost none. Often there appeared to be an eclipse, but it • was always of a very short duration, generally "proving to be some very trifling political molehill magnified to a veritable mountain by some over-enthusiastic journalist. In other instances simply the tall talk of irresponsible gossips. Look at that picture and on this. Nothing was quite so puerile, so calculated to l>ring even respectable journalism' into disrepute as the miniature scare-head-s which some of our Opposition journalists initiated during the days of R. J. Seddon's term oi office. A most trifling scrap of gossip — one could not call 't news, — gathered from some most unreliable source, was enlarged and exhibited in till the dignity of a leading article. The writers were generally considerate enough to add by way of conclusion — for they had suffered so often — "but we hope that this is merely a slight cloud on the aky of our present political atmosphere, because it would not augur well for the country if a change toek place previous to the general election.'' Yet— but it is a great fault in a prophet to be afraid of his own prophecies, and the writers who conceded the said screeds were men who more than any others disbelieved in their own dicia — their conclusions were merely professional. Of course, the Government press from Auckland to the Bluff had a right royal time, but it was indeed a sorry spectacle to witness the Opposition presr backing down all along the line. For years some of our best Opposition journalists thundered until they got so hoarse and tired that a highlytuned shriek wa? all they could furnish to meet even a great occasion. The shriek at last apparently became so undignified that these gentlemen dispensed with it altogether, and Opposition journalism — in the strict Sense of the word — oeased to exist. But we do not wish to blame editors, and have-not the least intention of doing so. We state facie, and facts are stubborn things. The «f act remains that in the history of the

Seddon regime Government or Liberal journalism played no conspicuous part. Opposition journalism fought valiantly, and did yeoman's service for their cause. But the cause was already a> lost cause, a forlornhope, and the reason is not far to seek. I will endeavour to give it. Take even our best and most representative newspapers, and you -will readily discover that the space given to political matters, and I include the leading article, is not large, but it is indeed adequate — in short, enough and to spare. The paper exists to please its public, and the public only require the facts <ot legislation, not the decorations. The subscribers wish to know what is going on in the House, but they do not require any advice with regard to what their own opinions on important questions should be. They welcome a scholarly and exhaustive article carefully and impartially dealing with matters of moment, but they ask leave to decide for themselves on which side they must cast their votes. Thus the prerogative of a democrat. Democracy has given to the newspaper its great circulation, its dignity, but it has robbed it of its power, and a great journalist is often a man who plays the part of a Boswell to some political Johnson. So the New Zealand press exercised only a nominal influence on our politics.- being in very trrth the "fourth estate," and it must rema.u so. Education, cheap literature, facility of travel, and last, but n6t least, the newspaper itself (no paradox intended), all tend to weaken the influence oi journalism in the legislative world. Possibly a man is better able to realise his own views by reading an illuminating article on some particularly vexed or complicated question ; bat as the world now moves, the leading article seldom, if ever, influences anyone. Another question. We hear of great papers fighting with leading politicians, and sometimes winning the battle. THis is not without precedent, and a particularly strong I newspaper can always prove victorious in a ■ fight wag-cd against corruption, but to attack the honest political aspirant merely on matters of political opinion always ends in ignominious failure for the journal. While in cases of corruption the country is at once on the side of the press, and it must succeed. And now, in conclusion, and in full consideration of the history of our last 15 years, I beg leave to hold that our "politicians were wiser and stronger than our journalists. Our journalists have done much to build up great papers, have been scrupulously honest, but in' no instance- have we possessed a journalistic prophet. The work on i the one side — the Government side — was too highly coloured by factitious eulogy, while on another — the Opposition side — too touched with opportunism and hypercriticism. Yes, the journalists have built up big concerns, but our politicians have welded together a work of supreme moment— dare I say a nation? But once allow politics to fall to ths dead level oi mediocrity, and then, and then only, is the opportunity for the great journalist. And when he does arrive, no doubt Parliament will immediately beckon him for " the applause of listening senates 'to command."