The Dominion. THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1909. THE DUTY OF THE PRESS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 530, 10 June 1909, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1909. THE DUTY OF THE PRESS.

We print to-day a cable message that reminds us once again that 1 in these times .the rights of the press are of less importance, and of less interest to the public, than the duties of the prrts. No journalist, however, really quarrels with the fact; it is one that makes for the honour and efficiency of his profession, just as the concern of many .classes for their rights rather than their duties makes for the deterioration of society. The holding of the Imperial Press Conference will of course result in public attention being particularly fixed upon the duty of the British press, and in this rcspect at any rate the Conference will be of some real value. Quite apart from the general question of the mission of British journalism, there are particular aspects of the newspaper's functions that deserve, and will: doubtless receive, special consideration at the sittings of the C6nferenco. One of tfyem is mentioned in tho cable message to which we. have referred, in which Sir Edward Grey advanced some very important propositions indeed. He held, we are told, that, "there should not be a partisan press in war-time, and .that tho , newspapers'should sfiow their patriotism by preserving silence upon many things which they knew." The first of these propositions is one. which can reasonably be disputed, although we hold that it cannot be refuted, and this for reasons which lie in the very foundations of society—reasons arising from the principle that makes treason the worst • of crimes and that requires all men to shoot down invaders of their country. But we do, not propose.to discuss that point just now. It is Sir Edward Grey's second proposition that is more immediately important. '

No doubt tho Foreign Secretary was referring in his speech to the duty of the press in war-time—a subject which has received a good deal of attention in the British. Parliament in late years. The question is admittedly a difficult one. The business of the press, as Delane always insisted, is publicity, and while one can insist that it must bo publicity with judgment, it is a very risky thing to impose fetters upon the judgment of those controlling the press. When-,' in 1906, there was talk-of, placing restrictions on the publication of military intelligence in war-time; it was quickly apparent that newspaper opinion on the point was divided. A conference of journalists held on June 26, 100G, at the United Service Institution, passed a resolution approving the action of the Newspaper Society in appointing a sub-committee to confer with the Committee of Imperial Defence as to', the necessary legislation. At a later j conference, however, the Newspaper Proprietors' Association declared that "there waa no evidence that material information concerning military and matters in time of war had been improperly published in the past," and that there was no occasion for legislation in the matter, since there was no cause for ;"suspecting the patriotism and discretion" of the conductors of the British press. The, subject was discussed in the House of Lords last June, and the Lord Chancellor made a statement which showed very clearly, tho difficulty which the Government has experienced in making up its mind. The actual Bill under discussion was an Official Secrets Bill, arid the Chancellor said:

With regard to tho Bill that had been referred to, he thought that injnry might be done to the country almost as much by the pnblication of matters which were not of a military or naval kind, as by the publication of : military and naval intelligence. H© was certain thoy were aIJ most anxious to • preserve the most complete freedom in the right of criticism in this country. They were all the better for it; but he did think it might be nocessary to put limits upon the publication of matter, the. publication of which waa directly dangerous to the interests of the country at large. It was a great mistake to suppose that, the subject was an easy oneJ . There wore a great many pitfalls.

Nobody suspects the patriotism of tho British press. The question, thereforo, resolves itself into whether the discretion 'of - the conductors of the press can be trusted.

/When Sir Edward 'Grey advises that newspapers should show their patriotism by preserving silence upon many things which they know he is only stating a rule of conduct which, in one way or another, is daily acted upon by most newspapers. Omission in the public interest is a function that is ns fully .exerciscd every day as publication in the public interest. We recently had a case in this country in which a very improper attempt was made to infiuenco the judgment of newspapers as to what the public interest requires. We refer to Sir Joseph Ward's confidential telegram to a number of editors. Although there is something to be said for the supply of official advice to the press, this telegram illustrates very forcibly the dangers that reside in such a practice. The editors who received Sir Joseph Ward's telegrams naturally concluded, that, strange as such a thing would be, the PHUU M liad tonus Bxticaaly

grave information in his possession, and they framed their opinions accordingly. Wo now know, from the Prime Ministee's own statement on Monday, that the information from which ho concluded that the situation was graver than people knew has since been published. And since no specially disturbing information has been published since he sent his message, it is clear that, if his motives were as he represents them, he made a false judgment, and secured that his error should influence the newspaper opinions at the time. If it is admitted that a Government may give ad vie® or offer grave opinions to an editor under the seal of confidence, the way is open, not only to error, and a consequent disservice to the public interest, but also to the direct betrayal of the public interest, A dishonest Government might supply, under the seal of confidence, false information or vicious advice, and a newspaper might act upon it in. all innocence. Not only would injury be done to the public welfare,.but the seal of confidence would prevent the newspaper concerned from exposing the trick. Should a Government deem it necessary to supply facts within'its knowledge to editors of newspapers, in order to enable them to arrive at a sound conclusion on any important public question, there is something to be said for this attitude, apd the confidence thus reposed in the press is not likely to be abused. But when Ministers keej back the facts, and offer only their own opinions on .a given situation, there is grave danger of the press being improperly influenced, and ,tho,public, through the press, misled in matters of vital concern.- On the whole, it is much the best way to leave the conductors of the press to form their own judgment, uninfluenced by Governments and unfettered bj sharp restrictions upon their liberty oi honest opinion. Any newspaper yentiir ing to abuse the trust reposed in it on any question, of national importance would not be likely to escape its just deserts at the hands of tho public.