Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

The Press WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1951. Mr Nash and the Press

Attacks on the press are part of the ■ stock-in trade of Labour politicians, lit is interesting to speculate, howj ever, on the reasons why Mr Nash | has thought it necessary to bring . out these rather shop-worn goods so early in his party’s sales campaign , and to give them so prominent a place in its display windows. Twice in a few days Mr Nash has accused the newspapers of “ gross unfair“ness” and “bias” against the J Labour Party. This ia the familiar Labour complaint that the newsI papers, in general, prefer the policiea of the National Party to those of the Labour Party—which is a sufficiently grave offence in Labour eyes. But Mr Nash also Has a personal grievance: “There’s bepn “nothing worse than what they've “tried to do with regard to my “ character", It ia not the practice of newspapers in New Zealand—as it is in some countries—to discuss personalities, or to allow their 1 writers and contributors to discuss personalities; even reports of speeches which deal in personalities are usually rejected on the grounds of taste, Mr Nash’s personal character has not been in question at any ; time; hjs actions as the leader of an < important political party have, quite properly, come under review in the press as they have wherever two or three or more persons have gathered together in the recent strike-ridden months.'Mr Nash must be sadly out 1 of touch with public opinion if he believes that only the country's newspapers and the dyed-in-the-wool Tories found it difficult to reconcile his own and his party’s declared attitude to the waterfront strike with the high sense of responsibility that should actuate an influential political party and its leaders in a time of national emergency. But the probability is that Mr Nash is very well aware of public opinion on this question—very well aware that* the ordinary citizen, regardless of his political views, thought that a “ neither-for-nor-“against” attitude simply was not good enough at a time when the Government and the whole community were engaged in a bitter struggle to preserve law and order against the attacks of men who had been denounced on other occasions by leaders of the Labour Party as “wreckers”. The newspapers, like the general public, found this atti» tude inexplicable—at least on any rational, responsible grounds. And if the newspapers, like the general ! public, concluded eventually that the attitude could be explained only by the Labour Party's willingness, if not eagerness, to take political advantage of the situation, they did so on their common-senge reading of the evidence that was plentifully available. If Mr Nash's, stature as a political leader has suffered by his and his party’s equivocal attitude in the strike, the fault is his own and his party’s. In his second attack on the press, Mr Nash seems to have realised that he had left himself vulnerable. The newspapers, he explained, do not actually lie; “ they make you believe , “a lie”. It is to be hoped that he > will explain, when he pursues this , subject further —as he no doubt i will—just how the newspapers per- 1 form this extraordinary feat. A lie is a lie, wherever it originates and however it is given currency; and it can alwdys x be rebutted. “The “ Press ” has always opened its news columns to statements by responsible political parties and their leaders; and subject to considerations of space, which affect all news items, they are printed as fully as possible. We believe that this is ; general practice among New Zealand newspapers. Certainly The ' “Press” has not refused to print any statement by Mr Nash on the waterfront strike or any other , question of public importance. It is difficult to Resist the conclusion that Mr Nash’s anger against the press arises not from any failure by the newspapers to print his and his party’s views on the strike, but from the simple fact- that the great majority of the public have read and studied those views and found little or nothing in them which they can approve.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19510801.2.43

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26488, 1 August 1951, Page 6

Word Count
683

The Press WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1951. Mr Nash and the Press Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26488, 1 August 1951, Page 6

The Press WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1951. Mr Nash and the Press Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26488, 1 August 1951, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert