“THE UNSPEAKABLE PRESS.”

Evening Star, Issue 22618, 9 April 1937, Page 1

“THE UNSPEAKABLE PRESS.”

TO THB EDITOR, Sir, —I am afraid that the Rev. Mr Scrimgeour’s criticism of, the Press is not so easily disposed of as your leader would imply. It is a notorious fact that the people are very sceptical of Press news, and _ every where we hear more or less forcible remarks concerning its truth and reliability. There ■is not a question of cardinal importance to mankind which the Press will allow to be discussed freely. Always the Press is on the side of orthodoxy and conservatism, or intent on _ restricting knowledge in so far as lies in its power to issues, or aspects of them, which are “ safe ” and orthodox." The fact that, in a constantly _ changing world, . that which is established and orthodox must be wrong is ignored by the Press. •We owe at lour progress to the pioneers who braved ridicule, scorn, ai*. disparagement. The Press is ever ready to supply all three in full measure. If any movement notable for_ its progressive nature or its application of new principles does forge ahead, it does so in spite of the Press, not because of it. Not one forward movement can be named which the Press has not opposed or failed to.aid. You affect to regard the criticisms levelled and quotations used as more applicable to American newspapers. There is, however, a masterly indictment of the English Press now in print by Mr Hamilton Fyfe, who has long and practical experience of the subject. A journalist who for nearly 50 years worked in Fleet street should be qualified to weite of the Press. This is what Mr Hamilton Fyfe has to say: “Thus the effect of the newspapers’ produce is one of see-saw. They are to one • thing constant never, though their prevailing moods vary from glum apprehension to fierce.annoyance. Their uppermost feeling is dread of change. . . .. Uneasy in the present, alarmed about the future, they will not have anything discussed on its merits. The test for all events, all measures, is; Do they threaten Capitalism? . . . A newspaper can persuade the public that nationalisation of land means taking away their gardens and. allotments; that, if the banks are interfered with (this has a familiar local ring) they will lose their Post Office deposits; that communal ownership of industries is a vague dream which, if turned into reality, would cause universal disister. . . . None the less, although its direct power over opinion has lapsed, what the Press can do indirectly is beyond calculation. It can weaken character, distort value, fill feeble minds with hopes, : alarms, hatreds, cause attention to be turned to matters that ward off thinking and away from those which concern the welfare of the nation and - the: world, • . . It is jusf th%-alert' attention that the Press cohtroliefs ’are" determined, if they can, to smother > . , they hope to prevent , the (British nation from ■ thinking, . . i from thinking especially about economic and political change. . . . Many still cherish, therefore, the notion that newspapers are independent, that they give’their opinions honestly, and seek only the public good. . . . They try to attach public attention to anything which does .not. require thinking about. -They exclude as far as they_ can all topics bearing on the economic and political future of this and other lands. . % . “ Here is a state of things . . •. in which everyone _ not blinkered by obstinate prepossessions must recognise a social risk. . . . The; methods I have described are not legitimate; they are, moreover, even for themselves, very dangerous.” I could quote a great deal more from this experienced British writer, but those who care to purchase ‘ The Press Parade ’ can read there much stronger condemnation than I have furnished above.' The writer is convinced that future ages will be amazed that we of to-day allowed such powerful organs to remain in anonymous and private hands. We nationalise the services which make for public health, and hedge all such about with severe restrictions, having the safeguarding, of the people’s physical welfare in view. When it comes to the much more important mental health we allow the service having the widest application and the most power to proceed along lines.which are directly op- . posed in many instances to that of the nation’s, or the world’s, good.—l am, etc.. Advance. [lf “ Advance prefers a “ nationalised ” Press he can find it in Germany, or Italy,'or Russia. But what most aggrieved persons want is a Press that will _ support,_ as well as-publish, their individual views. Mr Hamilton Fyfe was editor oL-the Labour ‘ Daily Hterald.’—Ed. E.S.]