NEWS CENSORSHIP ATTEMPTS

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25609, 25 September 1948, Page 2

NEWS CENSORSHIP ATTEMPTS

“TENDENCY AMONG LOCAL BODIES” NEWSPAPER PROPRIETORS CONCERNED (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Sept. 24. A growing tendency among local bodies to attempt to censor news at its source was noted with concern by the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association at its half-yearly meeting. The president (Mr R. D. Horton) said that the tendency would be' firmly resisted by all newspapers.” “This matter,” said Mr Horton, “has been brought to our notice by the president of the New Zealand Journalists’ Association (Mr D. K. Gunn). Members of the association have experienced with increasing frequency rulings by local bodies that reporters must exclude from their reports certain portions of proceedings or discussions held in open meetings. “Some of these ‘rulings’ are by the chairman, others come in the form of an aside from a member or members, ‘I don’t want this reported.’ Second, journalists have experienced a growing desire among semi-private bodies that reports of their proceedings be either supplied by or submitted to the chairman or secretary. “These are unhealthy tendencies in a democracy,’* said Mr Horton. “They amount to a censorship of news at its source, which is the most deadly form of censorship. A local body publicly elected and administering public funds has no right to attemnt to hide anything. Still less has it the right to bring pressure on a journalist to become party to an attempt at concealment.

“It is true that bv custom some proceedings of local bodies are held in committee and are not reported. This custom is not necessarily contrary to public interest: although there is a marked tendency nowadays to abuse it.

“But when proceedings are not in committee newspapers should have full freedom to report them, and to publish a report subject only to the discretion of the editor. This discretion in a vast majority of cases is wisely exercised. Member newspapers of this association will, I am confident. give full support to the journalists they emuloy in resisting attempts to interfere with honest reports. “It ’is desirable also th&t when a semi-private body, for reasons which seem good to itself, excludes reporters from its meetings but later supplies a report of its proceedings, the newspapers should clearly indicate to their, ‘readers that tlje report has, in fact, been supplied. If this is done invariably the public will have no difficulty iri assessing the relative value of a report which is the work of a newspaper’s own staff as compared with the kind of report which journalists know as a ‘hand-out.’

“The fewer ‘hand-outs’ published by the newspapers the more will its news service be respected.”