THE PRESS THURSDAY APRIL 17, 1980. Who is censoring a newspaper?

Press, 17 April 1980, Page 16

THE PRESS THURSDAY APRIL 17, 1980. Who is censoring a newspaper?

For some weeks the Prime Minister has been cross with the “Dominion,” particularly because of a series of articles in the Wellington morning newspaper on the building of a methanol plant in Taranaki. Mr Muldoon complained yesterday that the “Dominion” had censored a statement he had supplied in response to the series. He also gave notice that, until the newspaper printed the material that it had not published, he would exclude its correspondents from his press conferences. In determining the wisdom or propriety of Mr Muldoon’s intention the main question is not whether the “Dominion” was right or wrong in judging what to print. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the “Dominion” recently printed a statement from the Prime Minister consuming more than half a newspaper page to air Mr Muldoon’s views on the series and the newspaper has hardly been reticent in printing other criticism of itself from the Prime Minister.

Keeping an accredited journalist out of the Prime Ministerial press conferences is, to put it simply, an obstruction to the free flow of information from the Government, all the more important because Mr Muldoon’s press conferences have become, for a variety of reasons, among the most important sources of information on what the Government is doing and thinking. For all practical purposes it might be argued that the “Dominion” has alternative means to obtain the information it wants to give to its readers: that is not a good argument. If taken to its ultimate conclusion the argument would mean that in the end the sources could dwindle until there were none, or only those approved personally by the Prime Minister. Perhaps the person most pleased to dispense with news conferences would be Mr Muldoon’ himself; he should not be encouraged to suppose that they are dispensable.

The reason given by Mr Muldoon for his action is even more disturbing than-the : curtailment of the opportunity of one newspaper to have its reporters attend his conferences. The reason given amounts to no more than that the Prime Minister does not like what the newspaper has done, and wants to use his- presumed right to cancel his invitation to certain reporters to his conferences as a way of forcing the newspaper to print what it chose not to print. No-one would be quicker than Mr Muldoon himself to deplore such a tactic, however ineffectual, if it were employed by a political opponent. If the newspaper were disinclined to print any of Mr Muldoon’s criticism of itself, it would show a thinness of skin for which newspapers are not commonly known. In this instance such a question has not arisen. If a reporter could be shown to be careless, irresponsible, or distorting in his reporting of press conferences, the Prime Minister or anyone else would be quite justified in hesitating to invite such a journalist to a conference. In fact, before going so far as to exclude an accredited press gallery journalist from the Prime Ministerial press conferences there are ample means by which any such complaint can be tested. Again, this question does not arise; the reporting of the conferences is not Mr Muldoon’s source of complaint.

The Prime Minister must be persuaded that he was mistaken yesterday; that he does not decide what newspapers print; that, if newspapers are at fault, there is ample opportunity to expose their faults —even in the newspapers themselves; that readers will be the final judges of . the worth of editorial and journalistic decisions; and that denying journalists a well-established right to attend a press conference will not correct any faults that, in his view, the Prime Minister sees them committing.