SHUT REPORTERS OUT?

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1111, 26 April 1911, Page 7

SHUT REPORTERS OUT?

i RELIEF, AND OTHER CASES. PRO'S AND CON'S OF PUBLICITY. A discussion arose at the meeting of the Hospital Board yesterday over a proposal mooted by Mr. J. Godber. It was as follows:—"That the resolution that all meetings of the Hospital and Charitable Aid Committees be open to the press be rescinded." Mr. Godber explained that his motion was not brought down from a desire to shirk publicity, but the motion which ho proposed to rescind was too drastic, as it provided that all committees should be open to tho press. Some of the committees might properly be thrown .open, but it was not desirable that alt the business of, for instance, the Charitable Aid Committee, should bo reported. The Hospital SubCommittee had to deal with the inner working of the institution. To disclose details of its operations might be prejudicial. Similar considerations applied to tho meeting of the Finance Committee. The speaker suggested that the monthly meetings of the Hospital and Charitable Aid Committee should be- open to • the ■ press, but that other committees should sit in private. Mr. Kirk said that the resolution passed at tho last meeting merely provided that the Hospital and Charitable Aid Committees should be open to the piess. There- was no intention to throw open the meetings of the subcommittees. ,

Mr. Hindmarsh asked whether that resolution would prevent committees from "going int6 committee." The chairman said that a committee could go "into committee" whenever it pleased. Hβ added that all the meetings of the old Benevolent Trustees were open to the press.: Mr. Godber asked that the resolution passed at tho previous meeting should be read. It runs:—"That all meetings of the Hospital and Charitable Aid Committees be open to tho press." Mr. Moore, speaking as the mover of that motion, stated that ho had intended to open the General Committee ■meetmgs-only Po^ib,ly ; jMr rr ; fI GQQ>y; would accept this proposal. The chairman remarked that tho Hospital. Committee had a monthly, meeting- for business -of a general nature, but the Charitable Aid Committee had no such meeting. : .Mr. M'Ewan said that he had it in mind to propose that the Charitable Aid Committee . should . arrange its meetings on a plan similar to that adopted by.the Hospital Committee. Mr. London thought that it was a good thing to hare the press in attendance when charitable aid was being administered. There was a class of people that preyed on charitable institutions, and it was in the public. interest that their attempts should, be disclosed. ■ Moreover, matters of. public interest wero sometimes dealt.with by committees, and it was desirable that these matters should be reported/ Mr. Hindmarsh thought that it would add to tho humiliation of applicants for relief if three or four reporters were present. This hard-headed businesslike"' way of looking at' things' was to bo deprecated,. He was in favour of the press being admitted on most occasions, but where human suffering was in evidence privacy should be observed. It was no use, continued. Mr. Hindmarsh, saying tho papers did not publish things which they should ignore. Sometimes, when a poor unfortunate was called upon to answer a judgment summons, particulars were published,, although no order was made. The speaker was .opposed to the suggestion that any persons other than those who had to conduct inquiries should be witnesses when a man had to ask for assistance. Messrs. Van Staveren and Smith stated that, in their experience, no one had over been humiliated as a result of tho press being present at charitable aid meetings. Sometimes press reports were of service in enabling unfortunate people to obtain work. Press reports were of damaging effect only in the case of "schemers." At the instance of Mr. Kirk, Mr. Godber amended his motion to. read: "That all meetings of tho Hospital and Charitable Aid Committees (not including sub-committees) be open to the press." ; In this form the resolution was apnroved.