Greymouth Evening Star. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1946. Propaganda and Truth

Greymouth Evening Star, 21 September 1946, Page 4

Greymouth Evening Star. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1946. Propaganda and Truth

yyFIAT Labour chooses to call the “Tory press” has been accused of refusing to publish news items which Labour is pleased to construe as bearing testimony to the .wisdom of the Government’s administration of the country’s affairs. As an instance of the tactics-of the terrible “Tory press” is cpioted a tribute paid to New Zealand’s favourable financial position by Sir Sydney Parkes, chairman of the National Bank of New Zealand, in his annual report delivered to a London meeting. To put it mildly, Laboiw has over-stepped the mark. A cursory glance at a few of the files shows that this statement, which was cabled to New Zealand by the Press Association, was published in at least the majority of the main newspapers in the Dominion, being featured by some of them. Tt would indeed be regrettable if Labour is to continue to use such unscrupulous methods of attack on a press •which has a world-wide reputation for the impartiality of its news columns. The electors are being told Avhat the “Tory dailies did not print.” They arc not told what the Labour press does not print; neither are they being given an explanation why its local organ is given to presenting' its news in a manner calculated best to suit its political purpose, or why the very headings placed on its news articles are often given a. twist, so that even they are made to convey the party message. It may be remarked that what the Labour dailies do not print would probably make a far more interesting story.

The true position in regard to the socalled “Tory press” is that in the course of a year a great deal more space is given to Government statements, many of them containing more than a suggestion of propaganda, than is given to Opposition views. That fact has been acknowledged even by zealous Government supporters. Labour would indeed have difficulty in quoting a case where a news item, measured by the news yardstick, has been suppressed merely for political party purposes. Its press would the better employ its energies by endeavouring to persuade itself that the example 01. impartiality in news reporting and recording which the so-called “Tory press’” has set it is worth emulating.

Labour and the Upper House WITHIN a week of his appointment one of the members of the - Legislative Council, Mr. P. J. O’Regan, gave notice that he proposes introducing a compensation measure covering injury or loss of life in the course of travel. In a final, desperate attempt tb bolster its defence of a Government somersault, the Labour press has seized upon this isolated incident as an illustration how the Upper House can serve the purpose of revising and initiating legislation. That used to be its purpose. What the Labour press conveniently forgets to mention, however, is that Mr. O’Regan’s measure is the first for which leave to introduce has been sought in the Chamber in the present session. Apparently it was quite a notable occasion. Another recent happening which called for mutual congratulations was the discovery by a Legislative Councillor of a minor anomaly in a Bi] I sent up from Ihe House of Representatives for the usual rubber-stamp approval. The Councillors are indeed having a strenuous session.

Mr. O’Regan, it would seem, intends setting the pace. It may be remarked that if all appointees were of the same calibre there would be far less need for complaint. To suggest, as Labour does, that the introduction of one measure a session is sufficient to warrant the continued existence of the Upper House is, however, to argue to the point of absurdity. Mi. O’Regan would no doubt have met with little difficulty in finding a sponsor .for his measure in the House of Representatives, before which, if it is passed in the Uppei House, it must eventually come, to be either adopted or rejected. This procedure, of course, tends to nullify any ialue the Upper House may have as a place for the initiation of legislation.

What Labour does not attempt to ex plain is why it has changed its approach to the Upper House. The slurs it east at Legislative Councillors while it was m Opposition prior to 1935 led the eounti j to believe that when it came to power it would abolish the Chamber overnight, n deed, that was the stated poliity o. 1 iSavage. As we have remarked before, re reason is, of course, that Labour found the Upper House to be a com!or - able haven for veteran stalwarts o ie party, for defeated M.P-’s and so ee ec persons to whom, it considers leuarc is due for services rendered, all at a cos o many thousands of pounds a year to re already harassed taxpayer. What re or me were promised by Governments o ener tions ago has no bearing on the ques at issue, which is: Why did a change its front? If it was satisfiec e o 1935 that the Upper House should be abolished, why is it content now to man tain the present constitution?