FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

Waikato Times, Volume 124, Issue 20739, 24 February 1939, Page 9

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

ATTACKS ON LIBERTY TOTALITARIAN STATES’ METHODS RESENTMENT AT CRITICISM (By Telegrapn.—Press Association) HANMER SPRINGS, Friday. “Speaking at the Australian newspaper conference at Melbourne early in November, Sir Keith Murdoch said that he felt members were faced with a great many difficulties even in the earlv months ahead,” said the chairman, Sir Cecil Leys, at the annual meeting of the United Tress Association at Hanmer Springs, to-day. “He was one of those who thought that great changes were coming with disturbed world movements affecting our lives and institutions. ‘‘Newspapers would undoubtedly pursue their traditional role of independent critics and seekers after public good. That surely is the goal that must be kept in view. The Press of the world is on trial. “Commencing with the establishment of the Soviet in Russia under Lenin up to Ihe conditions that we find to-day in New Zealand, the freedom of the Press has been challenged. Autocracy and totalitarianism cannot tolerate free expression of opinion. It is necessary for their progress and even their existence that the right of free speech should cease to exist. With them, if newspapers are to continue they require to be the echoes of Government intention and policy. Lesson From Russia “When Mussolini came to power and Hitler rose to the position of undisputed arbiter of Germany’s destinies, they were equally quick to seize upon the lesson that Russia had taught that no voice other than that of the Government should be heard by the people. Russia established a censorship over news that passed beyond its borders, and correspondents, of which there were many, and able, could only hint at the condition of the country and endeavour to impart their convictions by innuendo, which could not, with 90 per cent of their readers outside Russia, convey their views on the great experiment which 175,000,000 people were enduring. “Italy under Mussolini improved upon this technique. When a correspondent was, in the view of the censor, too frank, he was told that his presence was undesirable. In 1938 ten foreign correspondents were expelled from Rome. In the case of Germany, countries adjacent to its borders were threatened when any statement adverse to the Government appeared in the Press. They were coerced into publishing no report reflecting upon the internal conditions of Germany. Violent Protests “But this was not enough, for violent protests were made to the Ambassador at Washington, when remarks derogatory to Herr Hitler and his methods were made by anyone prominently placed. Mayor La Guardia of New York, who was outspoken in hi* condemnation of the persecution of the Jews, was the subject of many protests by the German Embassy in Washington. Fortunately the Government of the United States made the Invariable reply that they had not, nor wished for, any control over the free speech of its citizens or its press. Germany got no change from America in the matter of frank comment on lta affair's. “But while this attitude in defence of free speech on foreign countries •was bluntly asserted, the Press of the United States, during the second term of Franklin Roosevelt, has been persistently attacked, not so much by the President himself as by members of his cabinet, who, it is safe to say, would not comment without the knowledge of the head of the Government. The trouble is that while every proposal of the Government receives the widest publicity from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast, the policy has found no editorial acceptance. “In most respects the policy of Roosevelt is analogous to that of our Government. It is meeting a position of unemployment by the establishment of immense public works. W.P.A. projects are exactly the same as we find in New Zealand in unremunerative channels of State employment. Even th 6 United States is groaning under the taxation that these schemes involve, and what the critics of Mr Roosevelt's administration inveigh against Is that they find no permanent solution of these difficulties, and that the possibilities of taxation even in such a wealthy country are limited. Honesty Belittled “So the position in America is not unlike that we face to-day in New Zealand, for the attack on the Press of this country is prompted not by any suppression of the information that the Government would like to impart to the public, hut by a dislike of criticism of Government methods and policies. It is the practice and not the conviction of totalitarian and socialist Governments to belittle the honesty and purposes of the Press, which in most countries, and certainly in this, endeavour to serve the interests of the community and promote the welfare of the people as a whole. “Chester Rowell, wcll-kown publicist. in an article dealing with the altitude of Ihe Roosevelt administration and the international onslaught on the freedom of the press, with which he rightly says, all other liberties of the individual* are involved, utters a word of warning about the responsibilities that this freedom imposes. The newspapers must realise, he writes, not only that the people's liberties are dependent on theirs, but also that their freedom depends on the deserved confidence of the people. That means that the readers of a paper must, believe, by long experience, that the paper never takes a public position for a private motive; that its owners realise that the public position of the paper does not belong to them or their advertisers, hut is held in trust f -r the community; that its editor must, realise that tlie freedom of the Press is no more the special privilege of journalists than academic freedom is the special \ privilege of professors, hut that both "\ are public trusts, in the public interest.” “It remains for English speaking countries to meet attacks on the rights of free speech, and only by a recognition of the obligations that our hard won freedom entails will this be successful.’*