ABOUT NEWS

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21808, 13 June 1936, Page 20

ABOUT NEWS

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir,—ln a sub-leader to-day you say modestly that “there has been no distortion of news or suppression of news in the Dominion press,” and again, speaking of Mr Carr, “It would be more than just if he gave some specific instances of suppression and distortion.” With your permission I will deputise for Mr Carr and give you some specific examples. For the purposes of this letter I will subdivide news into two headings, cable news and local news, and will bring evidence which convicts you on both counts. Cable news may be falsified in various ways. News cabled to New Zealand may be a deliberate lie calculated to deceive the people. Or the news may be true, but the cable sub-editor here may distort its meaning by a misleading or inflammatory heading. Or the Press Association in London may decide that a particular matter is not news, in which event we hear nothing of the matter. Some examples will illustrate roy points. Subsequent to the murder of Kirov in December, 1934, the following cable appeared on December 8, 1934, at the top of the first column of your cable page, “Red terror is again running riot in Russia. More than 200 persons, including women and children, have been shot. . . . Those executed include Sergei Kirov’s assassin, Nikolaev, his wife, his sons, and two daughters, and his 85-year-old mother. . . .” And so on for about 12 inches. Towards the end of December it was announced that the trial of Nikolaev and 13 others was proceeding. Clearly the first cable was a deliberate lie calculated to inflame people against Soviet Russia. It should be noted that you were a party to the deception by announcing the cable with the heading, “The Red Terror Again.” Supnression of cables is more difficult to detect, but I can mention a few examples. Last year a Royal Commission was set up to enquire into the armament industry, and on June 14, 1935, you admitted, in response to a letter, that “no cable news has been received of the progress of the commission’s enquiry. Surely the evidence put before the commission was news. Further, news of an important peace meeting, addressed by many prominent men, including H, G. Wells and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and held in the Albert Hall, was suppressed in both the English and New Zealand papers. The incident mentioned by Mr D. C. Davie on May 28 is another such example, despite your footnote. The fact that two of the three examples given refer to armaments gives force to the suspicion mentioned by Lord Cecil, when giving evidence before the Royal Commission on armaments, that there may be some connexion between the armament firms and the British newspapers. In the matter of cables you are an accessory to the crime, not the criminal. The distortion, _ the lying, the suppression are done in England; you merely consummate it in print. Before dealing with local news it is necessary to make some general observations. A newspaper is a commercial enterprise run solely to make profit for its owners. The greatest portion of this profit is derived from advertising revenue. Here is the cause of much of the suppression of news. No newspaper can afford to offend a big advertiser. For instance, you would not dare to write an honest review of a poor talkie, nor would you mention an inquest where facts were adduced which might show an adver'tiser in an unfavourable light. In April, 1935, Mr M. Riske, who had recently returned from Russia, addressed a packed meeting in the King’s Theatre, Wellington. Despite the fact that the Wellington newspapers were informed, the meeting received only three lines in the “Dominion” and not a word in the “Evening Post.” There axe, of course, more subtle methods of manipulating public opinion, and your paper, in common with other newspapers, uses them when necessary. For example, on June 9 you had an editorial attacking the Broadcasting Bill, against which I make no complaint, for the place for views is the editorial columns. However, on the following day you published a news item on the editorial page . recording interviews with “Christchurch business men,” wherein they declaimed against advertising over the air. Undoubtedly this “news” was intended to bolster up your editorial and your reporter, if required, could with equal facility have found “Christchurch business men” to approve of advertising over the air. This matter is not one which can be dealt with exhaustively in a letter; it would require a book. However, in conclusion, may I call your attention to some remarks of Humbert Wolfe You cannot hope To bribe or twist, Thank God, The British Journalist. For seeing what The man will do Unbribed, There’s no Occasion to. —Yours, etc., B. E. SOUTER, June 11, 1936.