Exclusion of Reporters

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23804, 25 November 1942, Page 2

Exclusion of Reporters

The Minister of Agriculture, yesterday, continued his efforts to have the press excluded from primary production council meetings, and gave the North Canterbury council his reasons. They appear to have softened on the way north. In Timaru, Mr Barclay was emphatic: the newspapers were “ political,” they used news for political ends, and this was “ intolerable.” Therefore, exclude the reporters: “Then “ we can send you all the stuff; but “ if reporters are to attend, then “ that’s the stone end of it.” The councils, in Mr Barclay’s view, were “semi-State departments,” and consequently they “ just could not have “reporters present.” These phrases would translate very easily into German or Italian.- But yesterday Mr Barclay made no threats, no flat demands. The question was “ de“bateable”; there was “something “ to be said on both sides.” He had “nothing against the press": not even its political function, its freedom to “ take sides ” on a public issue, such as production, and its alleged “ use ” of news for political ends. The newspapers, Mr Barclay acknowledged, “always put in or “keep out . . . just what we ask “ them.” This says too much; but when it is said that the press never rejects a well-grounded official request for publicity, or against publicity, in the public interest, the position is made clear. The Minister recognises it; and his case falls to the ground. Whether he puts it as he did in Timaru, aggressively, or as he did yesterday, singing small, it holds no more than two complaints. One is that “ correspon- “ dence from outside ” has “ slipped “ through ” and into newspaper reports of production council meetings. Mr Barclay’s remarks in Timaru show that he referred to official correspondence which was intended to be confidential. The sufficient safeguard against accident or error of this kind is, of course, to mark as such all documents that must be treated as confidential. They will then be taken in committee; no report, whether of their contents or of any discussion, will slip through.” Reporters know their job and their responsibility. Mr Barclay’s second complaint is the strange one that “ things crop “ up of a private nature,” which it must embarrass members of primary production councils to discuss in the presence of reporters. “ We " are much freer to criticise one "another, or the department, or the “ Minister,” said the Minister, “ if “ the press are not present,” If that is the Minister’s anxiety, then, he may safely leave the primary production councils their present freedom. Their members are less timid in the presence of reporters than he affects to fear. They will speak out. But there, wrap it up as he may, is Mr Barclay’s real motive: he does not want them to speali but so that

the public can hear and judge. He wants that appearance of unity which it is easy, and tempting, to secure by suppressing critical discussion. He does’ not want that genuine unity which can only be reached by trusting it. Mr Barclay, in fact, is leaning Hitler’s way. He would do better to follow Churchill’s.