NEWS IN WARTIME

Auckland Star, Volume LXXV, Issue 58, 9 March 1944, Page 2

NEWS IN WARTIME

CENSORSHIP AT. WORK

BRITAIN AND NEW ZEALAND

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. Commenting on the cabled statement by three New Zealand pressmen at present in Britain, the Director of Publicity, Mr. J. T. Paul, states: — "The joint opinion on censorship of the three editors of New Zealand newspapers now in the United Kingdom, cabled from London and published in the daily Press, demands consideration by everyone interested in the efficient administration and most successful conduct of the war. As one conversant with the machinery and processes of Press censorship in both countries, it is my duty to point out that many of the statements made by the three gentlemen are factually inaccurate, and that therefore their conclusions must be accepted with appropriate reservations. "Their most definite statement by way of comparison is in these words: 'Censorship of newspapers in New Zealand is compulsory; in Britain it is voluntary. In New Zealand, certain classes of matter which are designated by the censor must be submitted to and approved by him | before publication. In Britain, newspapers need submit nothing.' How British System Works " 'Voluntary censorship in Britain means in practice that scores of 'stops' and 'releases' are regularly issued by the controller of Press censorship, or by the chief Press censor of the Ministry of Information. These are all marked 'Confidential; not for publication.' They cover matter wnich mav not be published, specify other matter which must be submitted for censorship, and suggest that certain other matter should be carefully scrutinised. Some are in the 'request' category, in line with the New Zealand practice. In support of my assertion, copies of these may be inspected by any accredited pressmen at my office. " 'Compulsory' censorship in New Zealand in operation means that certain matter must be submitted for censorship, just as certain matter must be submitted under so-called Voluntary' censorship in the United Kingdom. In New Zealand, the measure of voluntary censorship ('honour,' or internal censorship if you will), is immeasurably greater than 'compulsory' censorship. There are leading daily newspapers in New Zealand which do not submit on the average one item per week for censorship. The regulations are clear, and after four years and a half of war pressmen should know what published information will or will not help the enemy. Periodical Criticism "The editors declare that the censorship in the United Kingdom is good. Censorship in the United Kingdom, as in New Zealand, is based on commonsense and fairness, but that does not prevent periodical outbursts of hostile Press criticism. It has not prevented organised agitations for changes of Ministers of Information in the United Kingdom. "In Britain, so the visiting New Zealand editors tell us, there is no censorship for policy, as opposed to security. The New Zealand Press informed its readers during one of the more recent agitations against the administration of the censorship in Britain that Mr. E. C. Castle, night news editor of the Daily Mirror, declared that 60 per cent of his work and that of his colleagues was being suppressed. 'There is deliberate, definite, and damnable censorship of opinion going on,' he declared. " 'Editors have had much to learn. Lessons sometimes have had to be learned in difficult circumstances.' I would say that both should keep on learning and remembering the words of Mr. Brendan Bracken, British Minister of Information, that 'censorship is no simple art. Any fact may be news, and any fact from a country at war may be of some value to the enemy. A shortage of this or that, a strike here—all such facts are watched for by the enemy.' "Coming nearer home, may I conclude with the closing sentence of a recent leading article in one of New Zealand's most responsible dailies: 'Words cannot win wars, but they can go a long way toward losing them.' Of all words the published word may be most dangerous as the conveyor of information of value to the enemy. There is a very sound case for the New Zealand censorship m law and practice. Some day, too the full story of helpful co-operation between the New Zealand Press and the censorship will be told. Few editors publicise the censor as a nuisance—fortunately many regard him as a co-operator with them in the furthering of the national war effort."