CENSORSHIP

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 116, 18 May 1944, Page 6

CENSORSHIP

SYSTEMS COMPARED

REPLY TO EDITORS The Director of Publicity, Mr. J. T. Paul, has issued the following reply to the statement made by Messrs. E. V. Dumbleton ("Auckland Star"), W. A. Whitlock ("Hawke's Bay HeraldTribune"), and P. H. K.Freeth ("The Press"), the three daily newspaper editors who recently returned to the Dominion from the United Kingdom. "The question at issue is not one of disagreement between myself and the British censorship authorities, but'of a misinterpretation of the British position as outlined in the statement issued two months ago in the name of three of the editors who formed part of the New Zealand Press Delegation to the United Kingdom. Their declaration was that the censorship of Press matter published within the United Kingdom is voluntary and consequently in direct opposition to the system in New Zealand, which was described as tompulsory. "In their further statement, published this week, they base this contention on an official memorandum given to. them for their guidance by a British censorship official. This memorandum opens by saying: 'British Press Censorship falls into two categories: (1) Matter for publication within the U.K. which is not subject to compulsory censorship, but which may be submitted for censorship, at the discretion of editors, should they consider that publication of such matter might prove of - value to the enemy. This consists of . ..' Then follow categories (a) to (f), the last-named reading: '(f) Copy for distribution by news agencies over their Press tape networks.' "The memorandum then proceeds:— 'Though matter covered by (f) is only subject to voluntary censorship, there is a "gentleman's agreement" between the censorship and the news agencies that they will submit to censorship all news matter which they propose to use, coming from overseas which bears directly or indirectly on the war. They also agree tovsubmit for censorship all matter which they propose to use, derived from news messages collected in the British Isles (including Eire) relating directly or indirectly to the war which, instheir judgment, should, as a precautionary measure, be so submitted in the interest of security.' "DEFENCE NOTICES." "The inference the editors draw from this and wish the public to accept is that all Press censorship in the United Kingdom is voluntary. In an elaboration of voluntary censorship the memorandum has this: 'Under the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, Regulation 3 (1) which is to be found quoted in Appendix D of "Defence Notices," it is an offence to publish certain material, and while it is impossible to lay down hard and fast rules as to what is or is not likely to be of value to the enemy, it is possible to give guidance on the subject. To this end editors are supplied with "Defence Notices," which, from time to time, are amended and brought up to date in consultation with representatives of the Press. As occasion demands, "Private and Confidential Communications to Editors" are issued, which are in effect additions to the Defence Notices.' : "The position can be fairly summarised by saying that certain matters are set out in the statutes and regulations in definite and widely-embracing terms, and the publication of these is as definitely prohibited. There is no question of anything but compulsory censorship so far as these are concerned. From time to time newspapers receive certain information concerning' specific subjects which are not to be published. These are known colloquially as 'stops' and they are accepted by the Press as compulsory restrictions. Fundamentally, and for the practical purposes of newspaper production, the differences in censorship administration in the two countries are not vital. "In New Zealand the censorship presses very lightly and the processes are exactly similar up to this point: that where the New Zealand censor has acted on an article submitted to him by a newspaper his ruling must be accepted. In actual practice there is small, if any, difference, because in New Zealand, as in Britain, there is the measure of voluntary censorship in which newspapers co-operate by seeking the ruling of the censor when they are in doubt. In Britain newspapers within certain limits may flout the censorship. But do they? I think the answer to the question would be so definite that, the contention that in actual practice the two systems work very much alike would be confirmed. BRITISH CENSORSHIP PRACTICE. "I must protest, however, at the misuse of a Press quotation included in my previous statement. I have not thrown doubt on the' quality of the British system or criticised the practice of censorship in Britain. It would be wrong of me to do anything of the kind. My statement was that 'Censorship in the United Kingdom, as in New Zealand, is based on common sense and fairness, but that does not prevent periodical outbursts of hostile Press criticism. It has not prevented agitations for changes of Ministers of Information in the United Kingdom. I quoted a newspaper criticism—Mr. E C. Castle, night news editor of the 'Daily Mirror,' who claimed that under the British system, which the three editors had hailed as being so much superior to our own, 'there is a deliberate, definite, and damnable censorship of opinion going on.' To suggest that my own words threw- doubt on the quality of the British censorship or that my language was open to that construction is a distortion. "Once again I say that some day the full story of helpful co-operation 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 cooperator with them in furthering the national war effort."