Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1937. CORRESPONDENTS' RIGHTS

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 36, 11 August 1937, Page 10

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1937. CORRESPONDENTS' RIGHTS

While the British Foreign Office cooks are trying to lift the lid off the Italian cauldron in order to tranquillise its seething contents, the German saucepan begins to boil over again. There is, of course, no parallel between the expulsion of three German journalists from London, and the German official request that "The Times" withdraw its correspondent from Berlin, unless the latter is charged with espionage, or with some unjournalistic conduct of equal criminality. Notwithstanding Hollywood interpretations of the journalistic code, journalism and spying have nothing in common. A journalist can annoy a Government— r either his own Government or a foreign Government—by interpretations of policy, but that does not class him with a journalist against whom evidence of espionage is available. For instance, the Berlin correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph," while giving the official reason (new evidence) for the postponement of the trial of Dr. Niemoller, adds his own suggestion that the authorities seek postponement because of fear of an. acquittal. That is a thing that a German journalist dare not say. It may therefore be a reason why Dr. Goebbels would like to get rid of the correspondent. But any action taken against the "Daily Telegraph" representative, in the German spirit of reprisals, would not put his case on a level with that brought against the expelled German journalists. Such action would merely recall reprisals against noncombatants in Almeria.

Journalistic correspondents hitherto have claimed the right to do journalistic work in a foreign country with at least the same freedom as in their own. They have claimed the right to report facts and to add interpretations and opinions. No doubt German journalists in London exercise that right; if so, they are exceeding their similar rights in their own country. But it is expressly stated that the three men expelled are not accused on that ground, or on any charge relating to journalism; and the "Manchester Guardian" and "The Times" both confirm that position. l Unless there is some charge against "The Times" correspondent of which the world knows nothing, the action of the German Foreign Office is a challenge to the right of journalists to exercise freedom —both as to facts and interpretations thereof—when working in foreign countries. If such a rule were applied in England, the exodus of American correspondents would be instantaneous. Yet the most hair-raising attacks by American papers on the mind and morals of every Government, including their own, blow away in less than twenty-four hours after they are born. That is the way of democracy, but it is not the way of dictatorship; and the question now looms up whether foreign journalists will have to come under the yoke, in dictatorship countries, as the domestic journalist does. What the German dictator proposes is only an echo of what the Italian dictator did when Italian journalists were withdrawn at Coronation time. It is obvious that the journalism of democratic countries, in its operations at home and abroad, will never please a Press control based on the German or the Italian model. Therefore pretext will always be present for international friction which a dictator can create at will. Yesterday it was Italy;' today it is Germany; tomorrow may repeat yesterday's history. This availability of material for raising friction may be convenient to any diplomacy that aims to maintain the ferment in Europe. But journalism has reason to object to being made a scapegoat for diplomatic marches and counter-marches. Therefore a hastily convened Press parliament is to meet in order to examine the situation "legally and professionally." The Foreign Press Association, of which "The Times" correspondent (Mr. Ebbutt) is an expresident, is calling' together 123 correspondents representing 23 countries —a gathering that may make history. If it does not, history will probably be made to its detriment. There could be no greater blow to civilisation than the reduction of international news services to a permitted propaganda level.

Against such a debacle "The Times" sets its face when it states that if Mr.' Ebbutt is replaced in Berlin he will be replaced by no more amenable correspondent. Taking the ground that the Nazi complaint against Mr. Ebbutt is merely his occasional criticism of the Nazi regime, "The Times" states that no such charge has been brought in Britain against Herr Langen (recently declared to be undesirable in Rome) and the other two Germans:

They were at liberty to praise or to blame, to exaggerate or to be.little, and to interpret acts of the British Government and habits of the British people exactly as seemed right to them.

A later Berlin cablegram fails to make any stronger charge against Mr. Ebbutt than that he has done his .reporting "in a spirit hostile to Germany," etc. That is the kind of charge that is easily brought against

any critic by anyone intolerant of criticism. It is, indeed, an attack upon criticism, and not upon the critic. The issue is thus clarified, and the international journalistic corps is given an outstanding opportunity to strike a blow for democratic principle and for journalistic freedom.