Exclusion of Reporters

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23803, 24 November 1942, Page 4

Exclusion of Reporters

Strange reasons were advanced to the South Canterbury Primary Production Council by the Minister of Agriculture (the Hon. J. G. Barclay) for asking for the exclusion of the press from the council’s meeting. The Minister’s statement explains the recent request by the Director of Primary Production that district councils of primary production should exclude the press from their meetings and prepare their own “discreet reports” for publication. Obviously the director had his instructions from the Minister, for, in referring to the director’s circular the Minister said: While he did not wish to curb the newspapers or hamper the press in its news gathering, he thought it in the interests of unity that their discussion should take place without the press being represented. Some letters that had come before the Primary Production Councils had been published and had created considerable misunderstanding, and had certainly not been helpful. "The newspapers are, after all, political, and they do use news for political purposes,” he said, “and if, in the business of production, the newspapers are going to take sides, the position becomes intolerable.” Mr Barclay said that he regarded district councils as semi-State departments, and in view of this, they just could not have the reporters present. The Minister and the department got a certain amount of criticism from the councils, and as the people had their Chambers of Commerce and other bodies to have a fly at the Government, he thought it better not to have reporters present at Production Council meetings. “If this is accepted.” he added, "then we can send you all the stuff, but if reporters are to attend, that’s the stone end of it.” Mr Barclay’s frankness let the cat completely out of the bag when he referred to councils criticising the department and the Minister. Criticism is not pleasant; but uninformed criticism is a great deal worse. The Minister does not appear to realise that his own action invites it and that he flatly contradicts himself when he says that “ he did not wish to curb the “ newspapers or hamper the press “ in its news gathering.” If it was not for this purpose, what possible other purpose could it serve? The Minister’s most serious charge against the press (which in this case means working journalists employed by the newspapers) is that “ the newspapers are, after all, “ political, and they do use news “for political. purposes.” This is

a clear and reprehensible reflection on the integrity of reporters generally, which is, as the Minister should know, entirely undeserved. A newspaper reporter who would present a biased report of any proceedings would be betraying the trust that his employers repose in him and running contrary to the ethics and the rules of his profession. No reporter employed by any New Zealand newspaper is asked to give anything but a fair and accurate report of any proceedings. Criticism (taking sides, if the Minister wishes to put it that way) is confined to the right place for it —the leading article columns. Certainly some matters come before the councils which it is not wise to make public. In this event the Councils’ course is clear: they can go into committee. The newspaper reporter lays down his pencil, then, and is no more likely to forget that committee business is confidential than any departmental officer or any member of a primary production council. The chairman (Mr L. V. Talbot) touched the spot when he said that the press was the connecting link between the council and the farmers, and without the reports the producers would not know what was going on, and added: “ I think “I can say that in many quarters “ members feel that the work of the “ council is being stifled.” This is no more than the truth. If the primary production councils, the Minister, or the department are doing good work they have nothing to fear from the newspapers or from critics outside the newspapers. They are protected by the fullest possible publicity as they can be in no other way. The danger the Minister fears, that disunity and misunderstanding will be created, is not less but far more likely to arise it the proceedings of the councils, as public bodies doing a job of national importance, are to be conducted in secret. Those are the conditions in which, to use the Minister’s words, “ the position becomes intolerable.”