THE BRITISH PRESS.

Putaruru Press, Volume VI, Issue 232, 12 April 1928, Page 1

THE BRITISH PRESS.

TRUSTIFICATION DANGERS. Problem for Democracy. Freedom of speech and freedom of the Press are the chief manifestations that the spirit of liberty and toleration is still abroad in the land. Those who know rightly how to value these priceless rights—not mere privileges —must view with dismay the evergrowing trustification of the British Press. The note of warning sounded

by the London Spectator is all the mere disquieting because the journal sees no way of combating the natural sequence of regarding organs of opinion—of news and views—as ordinary commercial commodities to be subjected to the machinations of newspaper monopolists:— “ The British Press is now largely owned by three trusts, and once again we wish to dissociate ourselves J from any attack upon the directorships of any of these combinations. We are dealing with the trustification of the Press as a whole, which has

been slowly going on since the ’nineties, but which has increased so alarmingly in the last ten years. No doubt, from the standpoint of the public, the multiple newspaper owner, like the multiple store, can pror vide the public with good value for j its money. There is this difference, | l however. Syndicated views distributed en masse can never be quite the same as the honest opinions of the working proprietor-editor or the independent editor, who may have certain obsessions but who nevertheless has the courage of his convictions, and who honestly seeks to act as a watchdog for society. Ten columns of news and opinion supplied by the independent editor, who has not to consider constantly what his absent proprietor will think is worth more to the public than double that amount of syndicated views. " In taking a survey of the British Press, the outlook is not entirely dark from the standpoint of those who believe in independent journalism. In London there is the standing example of the Times, and throughout the country there are great organs like the Manchester Guardian, the Scotsman, the Irish Times, and many more which we have not the space to mention which carry on the best traditions of British journalism.

“ In the case of the Times, its absorption by one of the newspaper trusts has been rendered impossible by the public-spirited action of Major Astor and his fellow-directors. Because of the part they play in influencing public opinion, newspapers never should be mere articles of barter, to be sold to the highest bidder like so many tons of coal or so many acres of land.

“ Fleet street will watch with interest Lord Rothermere’s establishment of the chain of provincial evening journals, the launching of which at an early date has been announced. We think that Lord Rothermere is probably correct when he says that some of the provincial evening newspapers are ‘ unenterprising and oldfashioned ’ compared with some of the morning rivals, and that they have suffered in quality as ‘ isolated economic units from their lack of connection with a powerful Press organisation.

“ What we deplore in all these charges is the passing of the independent editor-proprietor, and we view the future of the British Press with some alarm if this trustification of independent journals continues. Is there any reason, apart from the ownership of the longest purse, why this process of amalgamation and absorption should not be continued indefinitely? In a few years’ time we might witness the formation of one great newspaper trust, owning most of the dailies, evening papers, weeklies and periodicals in the country. A special obligation surely rests on all the remaining independent journals to safeguard their independence. As we announced when the control of the Spectator was sold by the late Mr. St. Leo Starchey to the present chief

(Continued in Next Column)

proprietor, we hope to ensure, as the Times has done, that the Spectator shall never be sold in the open market to the highest bidder, apart from other considerations. There is no more solemn duty resting on the newspaper owners of Great Britain than the safeguarding of the independence of the Press.”