CENSORSHIP

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 58, 9 March 1944, Page 4

CENSORSHIP

REPLY TO CREiCS

NEW ZEALAND SYSTEM The Director of Publicity (Mr. J. T. Paul) last night made a statement in reply to the cabled comments of three New Zealand editors now in Britain in reference to the British and New Zealand systems of censorship. "The joint opinion on censorship of the three editors of New' Zealand newspapers now in the United Kingdom, cabled from London and published in the daily Press, demands consideration by everyone interested in efficient administration and the most successful conduct of the war," he said. "As one conversant with the machinery and processes of Press censorship in both countries, it is my duty to point out that many of the statements made, by the three gentlemen are factually inaccurate, and that, therefore, their conclusions must be aacepted with appropriate reservations. "Their most definite statement by way of comparison is in these words: 'Censorship of the newspapers in New Zealand is compulsory; in Britain it is voluntary. In New Zealand certain classes of matter which are designated by the censor must be submitted to and approved by him before publication. In Britain the newspapers need to submit nothing.' " 'Voluntary' censorship in Britain means in practice'that scores of 'stops' and 'releases' are regularly issued by the Controller, Press Censorship, or by the Chief Press Censor of the Ministry of Information. These are all marked 'Confidential. Not for publication.' They cover matter which may not be published, specify other matter which must be submitted for censorship, and suggest that certain other matter should be carefully scrutinised. Some are in the 'request' category in line with New Zealand practice. In support of my assertion copies of these may be inspected by any accredited pressman at my office. SUBMISSION OF MATTER. " 'Compulsory' censorship in New Zealand in operation means that certain matter must be submitted for censorship just as certain matter must be submitted under the so-called 'voluntary' censorship in the United Kingdom. In New Zealand the measure of voluntary censorship ('honour' or internal censorship if you will) is immeasurably greater than 'compulsory censorship. There are leading daily newspapers in New Zealand which do not submit on an average one item per Week for censorship. The regulations are clear, and after four and a half years of war pressmen should know what published information will or will not help the enemy. The editors declare the censorship in the United Kingdom is good. Censorship in the United Kingdom, as in New Zealand, is based on commonsense and fairness, but that does not prevent periodical outbursts of hostile Press criticism. It has nest prevented organised agitations for changes of Ministers of Information in the United Kingdom. POLICY MATTERS. • "In Britain, so the visiting New Zealand editors tell us, there is no censorship for policy as opposed to security. The New Zealand Press informed its readers during one of the more recent agitations against the administration of censorship in Britain that 'Mr. E. C. Castle, night news editor of the "Daily Mirror," declared that 60 per cent, of his work and that of his colleagues was being suppressed. "There is a deliberate, definite, and damnable censorship of opinion going on," he declared.' "The editors declare that 'the censor and the newspapers alike in New Zealand have had much tol learn, and lessons sometimes have had to be learned in difficult circumstances.' I would say that both should keep on learning, remembering the words of Mr. Brendan Bracken, British Minister of Information, that 'censorship is. no simple art. Any fact may be news and any fact from a country at war may be of some value to the enemy. 'A shortage of this or that, a strike here —all such facts are watched for by the enemy.' "Coming nearer home, may I conclude with the closing sentence of a recent leading article in one of New Zealand's most responsible dailies:— 'Words cannot win wars, but they can go a long way towards losing them.' Of all words the published word may be most dangerous as a conveyor of information of value to the enemy. There is a very sound case for New Zealand censorship in law and practice. Some day, too, the full story of helpful co-ogeration between the New Zealand Press and censorship will be told. A few editors publicise the censor as a nuisance—fortunately many regard him as a co-operator with them in furthering the national war effort."