Greymouth Evening Star. FRIDAY, MARCH 24, 1944. PRESS AND SUPPRESS.

Greymouth Evening Star, 24 March 1944, Page 4

Greymouth Evening Star. FRIDAY, MARCH 24, 1944. PRESS AND SUPPRESS.

CONTROVERSY about the censorship on news emphasises the extent to which public men are. dependent upon the Press, recalling the story of the vendor of fish and chips who claimed special connection with journalism because “his work was so often wrapped up in it.” Politicians particularly realise the value of newspaper attention, preferring attacks to being ignored, and some of those so glib in their denunciations of the Press would have remained nonentities but for the publicity bestowed on them. Realisation of this value to themselves encourages Parliamentarians to emphasise the importance of the freedom of the Press, and to wax indignant when officials appear to be suppressing what should be freely known.

There is little doubt that democracy owes most of its growth to the freedom of the Press and other forms of publicity, and it will be a sorry day for the cause of the people’s liberty, if class dissensions, or dictatorial self-seeking, should deprive the public of this valuable safeguard. History reminds all. that the freedom of the Press was not won easily, many suffering imprisonment, injury, and heavy lines to bring about the right to publish opinions, so long as public welfare was not endangered. In peace as in war, there will always be instances where there is difficulty in deciding where liberty ends and license begins, but, on the whole, a just balance has been preserved, and the standard of fair play has been maintained. What was banned by one generation may be acclaimed by the next but this change in attitude is usually due to changed circumstances.

A free Parliament might be difficult to maintain unless the Press were free, even allowing for radio facilities. It is a healthy sign, therefore, that Parliament should display concern when censorship appears to be unduly interfering with the liberty of the Press. The debate in the House yesterday, did not carry the issue much further, as the complaints made by Members were evaded. 'The Controller of the Censorship claimed that the instructions to his staff forbade interference with expression of political opinion, and that the critics must seek further explanation from the Director of Publicity. It was inevitable Ihat opinions would occasionally differ between the censorship officials and the Press as to what suppression was necessary for national security, but, on the whole, the mutual desire to co-oper-ate has been in evidence. Some of the news suppressed would require strong imagination to claim that the occurrences concerned had much to do with national security, and it cannot be denied that the Government has been fortunate in some instances to have had less material available to its critics.

Newspapers are handicapped by the regulations in any arguments with the censorship officials, but there is little desire to indulge in nagging. Restrictions are passively accepted in wartime, but any attempt to continue the censorship when the hostilities are ended should be vigorously opposed. State control is being entrenched in various directions, and habit is weakening the people’s desire to resist. It is possible that a ease can be macle out in some avenues of activity that State control is not objectionable, but State control of the Press would be disastrous, and this fact must never be ignored, or belittled. The principle involved is far more important than the individual interests of public men or newspaper proprietors. A State controlled Press would be worse than none, calamitous as this would be.