PROTECTING THE PRESS.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 October 1921, Page 4

PROTECTING THE PRESS.

The Press of the Dominion has had to wait a long time for that measure of justice and protection which is at. last to give them an opportunity of publishing full and fair reports of public and company meetings, including charges that may he made thereat against public or business men. Hitherto, if such charges were reported, in the public interest, it was at the risk of an action for libel for which damages were claimed, and though it has been rarely that such actions have succeeded, newspaper proprietors have been put to considerable expense in defending the suits. The inability under the present taw to, plead privileges for all fair reports that were free from malice npt only penalised the Press financially, but in most eases deprived, the public of information they were entitled to. The British law has been much more generous in this respect, due provision being made for dealing with cases where malice has been shown. The Bill which is now before Parliament, although a tardy measure, is none the less welcome, mainly as demonstrating that the Press of New Zealand, which has bun so warmly eulogised by Lord Nbrtfacliffe and others, can be trusted to be fair and honorable in its reports as well as in its comments. By bringing the law of libel into line with that of the Motherland the Government has taken a right step. The .privilege now existing as to reporting Parliamentary debates is extended to include Press reports of local authorities, bodies of trustees, meetings of creditors anti shareholders of banks and companies, also public, meetings including those to which admission is restricted, it being always understood that the reports must relate to matters of public concern. It may be thought that the definition of what is and what is not “public concern” may prove a matter on which the law may still have to determine, but the Press may well be trusted not to sail close to the wind in this matter. In the past they have ex-

ercised a wise discretion as between matters of public and private interest, and will assuredly continue that course in the future, failure in this important matter ’being rightly penalised. At the same time it is possible' that attempts will still be made to bleed newspaper proprietors by means of bogus actions at law, and to prevent this provision should be made for authority to the Lower Court to impose on the plaintiff the obligation of proving his good faith by the deposit of a reasonable sum of money to cover expenses. If this is done the Bill will be immensely improved and ite object more fully attained.