CONTROL OF PRESS

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 25020, 31 October 1946, Page 7

CONTROL OF PRESS

British Inquiry Suggested DEBATE IN HOUSE OF COMMONS (N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) (Rec. 10 p.m.) LONDON, October 29. The debate on the proposal for ap inquiry into the control and ownership of the British press was opened in the House of Commons to-day by Mr . Da vies (Labour). He moved: Having regard to the increasing public concern at the growth of monopolistic tendencies in the control of the press and, with the object of furthering frpd expression of opinion through the press with the greatest possible accuracy in the presentation of news, this considers that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into the financial control and management and ownership of the press.”

Mr Davies’s motion was carried by 270 votes to Mr Davies said that the motion was not put on the order paper at the behest of the Lord President of the Council (Mr Herbert Morrison) with the object of muzzling the press and curtailing its freedom, or because the Government wanted to nationalise the press.

Mr Davies emphasised that he was not a newspaper proprietor, but a working Journalist. “We have watched thp desfructipp pf the great newspapers and seen great combines bunding up and kihipg the independent journals,” he said. “We have seen the honourable profession of journalism degraded by high finance and big business. We have watched subservience replace judgment. The on# freedom of the press to-day is the freedom of the newspaper proprietors. They have perfected a closed shop, with the highest entrance fee in industry.” Mr Davies said that in the last 25 years 47 per cent, of the morning papers had vanished, and a quarter of the evening papers. Was there any? one concerned with the freedom of the press who could regard that and be happy about it? If it was so easy to ?tart 9 newspaper, why all those deaths and not one birth? The freedom of the press had been overwhelmed, not py baa and unscrupulous journalists, but by the power of high finance. Subjects for Inquiry

4.1. ' claim that journalists cannot do their job of presenting news and views fearlessly while at the mercy of high ’.Mded Mr Davies. He hoped that the debate would be hon-political. A Royal Commission should inquire mto: (1) the ownership, control, and financing of national and provincial newspapers, news agencies, and periodicals; (2) to what extent the growth of powerful chains of newspapers’was creating a monopoly; (3) the ability of the independent national and local newspapers and periodicals to withstand the increased competition from syndicate companies; (4) the influence of financial and advertising interests on the presentation and suppression of news; (5) the distortion or suppression of essential facts in the home and foreign news. Mr Michael Foot (Labour), supportipg My said that the newspapers’ theory seemed to be that the pross lords might attack Ministers, but Ministers must never attack the press lords. The plea for a commission was an effort to protect the right of free expression. Mr Foot said he failed to understand Sir Hartley Shawcross’s apology to Lord Kemsley for describing the Kemsley newspapers as the press,” because Lord Keftisley’s newspapers did distort news and suppress evidence. They were used as vehicles for expressing Kemslfey’s political opinions. ’ Sir Donald Maxwell Fyfe (Conservative) said he had not heard a word in previous speeches about the strength of the imputations that there had been a growth of monopolistic tendencies in the control of the press, or that free expression of opinion through the press was limited, or that the accuracy of the presentation of news was open to challenge, and it was these imputations that the House would have to consider before a prirna facie case could be made. '‘The papers supporting the Government have a circulation of 7,470.000 and those critical of the Government 7,665,000,” he added. “As far as the national dailies are concerned, there is. broadly, equality at present. The suggestion implicit in this attack is that the Left Wing is not represented. This is fallacious and it does not come into accord with the facts.”

“It is interesting that, whereas the Hight Wing papers are most ready and willing to open their columns to the Left Wing contributors, I have never seen in the ‘Daily Herald.' the ‘News Chronicle,’ or the ‘Daily Worker’ any Right Wing figures being allowed to express their views. The British press shines forth as an example of freedom and independence. This is an attempt to destroy the tolerance of which is the life blood of democracy.” Sir Donald Maxwell Fyfe added that the very growth of circulations made it difficult for any newspaper to doctor the news. One could more easily dis-

tort the news before the days of large circulations and before the 8.8. C. He could not accept the remark that journalists were subservient. He believed that if any proprietor suggested that news should be doctored the run of journalists would not be a party to it. He agreed that, unlike some of their Continental colleagues, British journalists could not be bribed directly. What they put in or left out was dictated entirely by its news value. No prima facie case had been made out for an inquiry or anything within miles oft it. It should never be enoqgfi in £ritain to get an inquiry merely because certain people were thin-skinned with regard to hostile comments. In large areas of the world the freedom of the press was unknown. M r Beverley Baxter (Conservative) said that the establishment of a Royal Commission to investigate the activities of the press would prima facie be a vote of censure on the press and a definite warning that something wgs going to be done that the press would not like. Mr T. Driberg (Labour) said that the demand for a commission was, not an attack against the press as such, but against the controllers of the great chains of newspapers. He asserted that in newspaper offices, in which he had been, the influence of advertisers was exerted. Mr H. W. Harris (Independent) wanted to know if the Government intended to act on the Commission’s finding. He feared that legislation regulating the press might result in the “first step to the road on which the press found itself in totalitarian countries.” Group Captain the Hon. Max Aitken (Conservative) said that the newspapers previously gave power to the man at the top of their organisation, but that power could be dissipated overnight if the people did not buy the newspapers. The newspapers to-day were sold on their merits. There were few circulation incitements as there were before the war. Government Not Committed “I have been fighting newspapers all my life, and they have been fighting me,’’ said Mr Herbert Morrison. He added that the newspaper proprietors were sensitive. You could not look at them twice without them accusing yoti of wanting to interfere with the freedom of the press. “They are the most thin-skinned section of people I have ever knocked about with,, while they themselves say the most dreadful things about us,” he added. “The press, as a whole, does function as a kind of unofficial part in the working of the British Constitution. J would defend to the last its right to be a consistent critic of the Government, but I do not like this acquiring of newspapers and their conversion into great chains of newspapers. The practice of provincial newspapers having their policy directed or imposed upon them from London is a bad thing, and it ought to be inquired into. I think a case for a Royal Commission is made out, but that does not commit the Government to any action thereafter.” Mr Morrison said he had read the same leading article in several Kemsley newspapers, and was told later by journalists that a directive was issued daily from Lord Kemsley’s London headquarters to provincial editors instructing them on the line to take for the leading article and sometimes even for feature articles. Mr Morrison, answering an interjection, said the Government in due course would authorise an inquiry into the 8.8. C. The Conservative whips were active in the division on Mr Davies’s motion and no Conservatives voted for it.

The Press Association says that Labour members were given a free vote. About six voted against the motion and several abstained from voting. The Liberals were about equally divided. The Government has already decided on the terms of reference of the Royal Commission which will follow fairly closely the lines of the motion. The commission, which will be set up shortly, will be asked to inquire into monopolistic tendencies in the control of the press, the finance, management, and ownership pf the press, and also to assess the influence of advertising on the presentation of news.