The Press MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 1947. Freedom of the Press

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25253, 4 August 1947, Page 6

The Press MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 1947. Freedom of the Press

If the members of the Government and those who instructed them expect to draw violent protests against the suggestion for an inquiry into the “ ownership and financial con- “ trol of New Zealand metropolitan , “ newspapers ” it is likely that they j will be disappointed. The only ob- ■' jection to the proposal that this I journal feels it necessary to record is j the natural objection to a waste of: time and money on something that | is unnecessary. The Government already has access to all the relevant • information about the ownership i and financial operations of the news- . papers, and there are no secrets ! about the way in which a news-1 paper carries on its daily business 1 of presenting, in its news columns, I a representative selection of the news and views of the day, and, in its editorial columns only, the opinions that derive from and express its principles and policy. Within the limits of their size and resources the New Zealand newspapers perform this function as efficiently as the newspapers of any other country and far more efficiently than most. Their sense of the responsibility defined by the Prime Minister—to ensure that there is a fair selection of news and fair representation of views—is exceeded nowhere. The majority of the newspapers in New Zealand oppose, editorially, the basic Socialist policy of the present Government, while giving it credit for valuable and enlightened legislative measures. They would be failing in their duty to the public if they did not attack bad and inefficient government wherever it raises its head, and the history of the press in New Zealand shows that the newspapers have performed this duty, whatever the Government in power. The present Government is, however, more sensitive to and resentful of criticism than any of its predecessors. Its propagandists have neglected no opportunity of trying to convince the public that the newspapers distort the news to the disadvantage of the Government and the advantage of its opponents. They forget that the news columns of the metropolitan newspapers are always wide open to statements by the Government, its members, and officials, to responsible representative organisations, and to interested individuals. Moreover, they do a grave injustice to a conscientious and responsible body of workers who include a large proportion of the Government’s own supporters. Virtually all working journalists are members of a union and appreciate what responsible unionism has won for them and for other workers. It is part of their training to present news, and the publicly-expressed views of others, in an objective way, uninfluenced and uncoloured by their own political opinions or the (editorial) opinions of their paper. It is worth quoting again the instruction issued to every member of the reporting staff of “ The “ Press

The first duty of every journalist is accuracy. Make sure of your facts and set them down in simple language, uncoloured by your personal opinion or what you think the view of “The Press” may be. Obtain both sides to a question and write your story without favour to either. The reputation of ‘ The Press” has been built on the strict accuracy and impartiality of its reports. The paper’s policy on any question is expressed only through its editorial columns. On no account must it be permitted to creep into the news. It is better to eliminate a statement of which you are not sure than to risk the paper’s reputation for accuracy This does not absolve the reporter from the responsibility of verifying his facts.

Dr. Finlay framed his question in the House in. a curious way. He asked for an inquiry “like that in “ Britain ” but “ with a view to assuring the people of New Zealand “ that they enjoyed the greatest pos- “ sible freedom of the press ”, It cannot have escaped his attention that the inquiry in Britain was set in motion for precisely the opposite reason: to demonstrate to the British public—as some contend—that they do not enjoy the greatest possible freedom of the press. Nor can he be unaware that l the main com : plaints against the press of Britain relate not to the great independent papers on which the metropolitan journals of New Zealand are modelled, but to the chains of papers under personal ownership, which are unknown in New Zealand. The agitation for an inquiry into the press in’Britain came in the first instance not from those who had political axes to grind but from the National Union of Journalists. There is no evidence whatever that the journalists of New Zealand consider there is need for a similar inquiry here. It is difficult not to draw the conclusion that Dr. Finlay and other members of his party are far from hopeful that a press inquiry in New Zealand will serve them any useful political purpose; that they would nevertheless like to see if they could uncover something discreditable to the newspapers which oppose their policy; and that, if their efforts fail, they will be able to justify them by pleading the most noble and disinterested motives, namely, “to as- “ sure the people of New Zealand “that they enjoy the greatest pos- “ sible freedom of the press