Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. MONDAY, MAY 6, 1940. WAR “NEWS.”

Greymouth Evening Star, 6 May 1940, Page 6

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. MONDAY, MAY 6, 1940. WAR “NEWS.”

ITT was to be expected that the Allies’ setback in Norway would cause a search for a. scapegoat to be early instituted. Opposition Press and speakers have got busy criticising Ministers, intimating that drastic changes in Cabinet personnel and policy are imperative, and that the nation will not have to look far, before finding men capable of doing all that is desirable. The Commons debate, this week, should prove interesting, but not necessarily sensational. The critics have some just cause for complaint, but they are speaking after the events, when wisdom is comparatively easy. Few doubt that there is scope for strengthening the Cabinet, even a change in leadership would not be a certain disaster, but when emphasising Ministerial failures, it is fair to recollect their successes. Taking, the war as a whole, as far as it has gone, the Cabinet has done well, the Allies’ strength having been gradually. developed. The nation desires a really National Government, but Labour and Liberal leaders have hitherto refused to join such Coalition. There is one matter about which the whole Empire is probably unanimous, and that is disappointment, —almost disgust—with the manner, in which news of the war

is provided by the autliorities.®The claim that nothing should be published'that might be of value to the enemy, is being used as an excuse to refrain from publishing much truthful news to the Allied peoples, who, instead, are fed witlncolumns of rubbishy reports from neutral sources. Protest has followed protest, but the plea that patriotism demands strict censorship has been the only answer. Why a more strict censorship is not exercised on lies from neutral sources, thus preventing the misleading of Empire people, is not known. Even the British and French official communications are not above suspicion; more for what they leave out fhan what they actually state. Scope is left for wrong inferences, and wrong estimates of the real situation. A cablegram from London, last week, told of a “strike” by warcorrespondents at the R.A.F. headquarters in France as a protest against a further tightening of the censorship. A strong protest has also been sent by the Association of Overseas Empire Correspondents, to Mr. Chamberlain, against a further muzzling of the Press. It is understandable that there must arise occasional differences of opinion as to the advisability of publishing certain news, between the Censorship officials,, and journalists eager to forward “scoops,” or to justify their expensive employment.. Any real doubt should be settled in favour of the tensors, but it is difficult to believe that these are not being unnecessarily arbitrary. There is no question that public resentment is growing, and the comments published in Britain and South Africa, express Empire opinion generally. A feature of the news that is issued by the British Official Wireless, which, to-day, has become the chief source of supply, is the “soothing syrup” character, especially where the Government policy or decisions are concerned. Less bias would be useful when referring to aerial encounters, which are made to look more or less easy for the R.A.F. The casualty lists prove otherwise. Pro-British comments'in the neutral Press are often forthcoming, but it would be foolish to accept these extracts always as typical of outside opinion. The belittling of enemy strength is perhaps designed to improve the Allied people’s morale, but it is not necessary to use such tactics. The Allies are determined to win the war, whatever the cost, ft does not make for wholehearted effort if the impression is spread by official and other messages that the enemy is right up against it, in various ways. The setback in Norway will serve a useful purpose if it directs Empire attention to the difficulty of the task of removing the Nazi menace. The “news” that has hitherto been' showered on the public, by press and radio, is of the type creating complacency, or distrust, both undesirable developments. It is to be hoped that one result of the Commons’ debate, this week, will be an improvement in the news service, where the war is concerned.