CENSORSHIP

Auckland Star, Volume LXXV, Issue 56, 7 March 1944, Page 4

CENSORSHIP

BRITAIN AND N.Z.

EDITORS' COMPARISON

The following article was written by Messrs. E. V. Dumbleton, P. H. Freeth and W. A. Whitlock, editorial members of the New Zealand Press delegation now visiting Britain.

Rec. 10.30 a.m. LONDON, March 6. The day-by-day perusal of the manner in which British newspapers report the war activities at home and abroad is instructive to a New Zealander. Three editors of New Zealand newspapers in the United Kingdom find that although this country has been for nearly four years and a half much closer than New Zealand to the enemy, a greater degree of freedom is enjoyed by the Press here. In their opinion this is partly attributable to the traditions of freedom, which are older and stronger in Britain than in any other country, and to the pervasive and refreshing atmosphere of tolerance. In part also it is attributable to the different conception of censorship. Censorship of newspapers in New Zealand is compulsory, in Britain it is voluntary. In New Zealand certain classes of matter designated by the censor must be submitted to and approved by him before publication. In Britain, newspapers need submit nothing. Voluntary submission of matter for censorship is regarded in the nature of insurance against violation of security, and censorship in consultation with Service and other departments is enabled to guide the Press to what is or is not publishable from the viewpoint of security.

The "Honour" System It is in effect, the "honour" system. There are three striking differences between the censorship system of Britain and New Zealand: (1) Whereas in New Zealand a newspaper commits an offence if it disobeys, even unwittingly, a censorship instruction, in Britain an editor who does not choose to abide by cuts made by censorship does not necessarily commit an offence. The official atttitude is: "He merely asked for expert advice, and if he ignores such advice it must still be proved against him that he has, in fact, published matter valuable to the enemy." In the whole period of the war to date there have been only two prosecutions. (2) In Britain there is no censorship of policy as opposed to security. Guidance memoranda are issued from time to time by the controller of the Press and censorship, giving authentic background information on current events. It is left to the judgment of editors to publish matter relating to policy as they think fit. In Britain newspapers may indicate plainly that the censorship has operated or is operating in respect of specific matters. Thus a war correspondent in Italy may indicate what (for the time being) he is prevented from reporting. In New Zealand it is an offence to indicate in any way that any matter has been, or has been required to be, submitted for censorship, or has been cut by a censor. Another difference, of importance concerns the reprinting of news or articles published abroad. In Britain, if a message comes from a neutral country, it is assumed that the enemy can learn of it directly, while if it comes from an Allied country it is assumed that local censorship has passed it; that, in any case, an attempt by the British censorship to stop it would be futile. In New Zealand these assumptions are not made. ' The foregoing' observations concern information intended for publication within the United Kingdom. All news and articles intended for publication outside the United Kingdom are subject to compulsory censorship as in New Zealand. Right of Appeal Given Whenever a message is cut in censorship, or has to be delayed over 15 minutes, the censor telephones the correspondent to inform him, and this gives the correspondent the opportunity of appealing to a higher authority, which sometimes reverses the decision. No cable which has been cut in censorship may be transmitted without the correspondent's consent. In addition to the liberal co-opera-tive attitude of censorship officials, publicity is greatly influenced by the attitude of the Services towards the Press. In this connection there was published in London recently an article of the kind which probably would not be published in any other country. After the resumption of air raids on London anti-aircraft headquarters held a "court of inquiry" into the effectiveness of London's defences. The Commander-in-Chief, Sir Frederic Pile, presided. Also in attendance were his staff, his scientific advisers and a special team of investigators who, with the-aid of apparatus, are able to check the accuracy of every shell fired against the raiders.

Very Frank Discussion At this conference a very frank and exhaustive discussion of the difficulties of anti-aircraft units and their performance against raiders were explained, faults were explained and orders given with a view to correcting defects. The remarkable fact is, not that such a conference should be held, but that it should be attended by a Press representative and a comprehensive report published. . .' . The effect from the viewpoint of the ordinary citizen subject to bombing cannot be other than refreshing and encouraging, instead of reading a bland and uninformative statement or perhaps never hearing that such a conference was held. He is enabled to realise that his safety is in the hands of men who, being human, are not perfect, but are resolved to do everything possible to correct mistakes and repair deficiencies. . This happening, together with the general attitude of censorship to the Press has impressed on the New Zealand visitors the need for reconsideration of the censorship system in New Zealand. Censor and the newspapers alike in New Zealand have had much to learn, and lessons sometimes have had to be learned in difficult circumstances, but there is an unassailable case for revising the system now, in a frank imitation of the British system, which is the best in the world.