NEWSPAPERS AND LABOUR PARTY

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

NEWSPAPERS AND LABOUR PARTY

CRITICISM BY MR NASH JOURNALISTS PROTEST Journalists from the main centres had complained to the Dominion council of the New Zealand Journalists’ Association about criticism of the press by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nash), said the president of the assoclation (Mr D. D. Borman) yesterday. Although Mr Nash might have intended his criticism to apply to leading articles in the newspapers, his remarks, as reported, applied to news ana affected working journalists, who valued their reputation of reporting the news accurately and fairly. . “If Mr Nash wishes to attack leading articles or a particular newspaper, he should make himself clear, Mr Borman said. "Reporters in Wellington who have reported Mr Nash’s various statements have reported him fully —more fully sometimes than the news value of the statements warranted. Mr Nash appears to have a particular complaint against one newspaper, Whether that complaint is justifiable or not he should not let it lead him to a sweeping criticism.” ' When Mr Nash was in Christchurch recently for the annual conference of the Labour Party he met reporters from Christchurch , and Wellington, thanked them for the reports ana the space given to the proceedings of the conference, and made general remarks on the standard of the New Zealand press, Mr Borman continued. Those remarks differed widely from those he had made since the election campaign opened and which had been published in the newspapers criticised by Mr Nash.

It was unfortunate that with the election approaching politicians were again attacking not only the newspapers but also the reporters who worked for them, Mr Borman said. As in past elections, reporters would continue to report election meetings fairly and accurately and no doubt the major newspapers would continue their policy of giving equal space to reports of candidates’ speeches. Although journalists throughout New Zealand had protested against the restrictions placed on the press by the Emergency Regulations, a sub-commit-tee of the Wellington Journalists’ Union had found that the administration of the regulations had caused no serious interference with news services in Wellington, continued Mr Borman. The union had reported: “Whenever statements were made they were published, and all incidents, etc., were reported factually and the reports run in full. “The only effect was that the strike leaders refrained from making statements to the press, at least until fairly

late in the strike. They claimed that under the regulations statements would not be published anyway. Strike bulletins claimed that the press refused to run their leaders’ statements, but this was not true. The indication was that the strike leaders deliberately refrained, from testing the press, with the idea in mind of making capital out of their lack of publicity,”