THE GREY RIVER ARGUS MONDAY , June 22 1925. MISREPRESENTATION.

Grey River Argus, 22 June 1925, Page 4

THE GREY RIVER ARGUS MONDAY , June 22 1925. MISREPRESENTATION.

One oi the worst things that honest men have to conitend with is deliberate misrepresentation, such ;. s that carried on by the exponents oi vested interests when they are criticising the members o f the Labour 1 arty. To ‘this end they use tlieir staunch ally, the capitalist press, whenever an opportunity arises. A capitaJist paper will unashamedly change its colour as frequently as a | chameleon, providing, of course, H has a. Hing at some exponent c f Labour who has dedicated his life to the betterment of the world. If the regoncraltjon of mankind could be brought about without disturbing profiteers and rack-renting landlords, the press would probably take an mi | partial attitude between men who J say tharti the evils of this earth a’v | due to human nature and those who J say not. But, as ha.s been admitted jby every economist and publ r < | worth mentioning, the unequal di. 1 ;- 1 tri button of wealth is -the cause of poverty. 'I heretore, without in'torfering with profits, it. is impossible to bring about the social changes necessary to abolish poveity. It is (pule evident, then that opposition to social betterment from the few who receive huge profits is certain. Most newspapers max have had some soul before the days of intense capitalism, but at present we find vested interests controlling almost every newspaper in New Zealand. When profits are challenged editors let loose the vials of their wrath in columns of distorted news and leading articles, with the one object of discrediting self-sacrificing individuals whose sole aim is the public good. The Hokitika “Guardian” provides one >l (he latest examples of deliberate 1 ; misinterpreting facts (hat ha.s come under our notice. When the Member for West,land delivered a pie-session-al address in Hokitika bust week, a representative of the “Guardian” was present. Two days after, that paper devoted two leading articles to Mr o‘Brien‘s speech. Had the criticism been fair no one would have objected. When, however, an editorial writer goes the length, in his articles, h making the Member lor Westland

resopnsible for sentiments and sen tences which neither ho nor any other Labour Member ever uttered—when in is representation is cunningly w.cten into the remarks attributed to any speaker—then, surely, it me-, such a, writer can be no longer credited with the ordinary rectitude which should bo the soul of every exposition of -‘the views of fair-minded people. Tho “Guardian” spread itself over twenty-eight inches of criticism of Mr. O‘Brien’s speech. 1 r.e whole of the articles wore, misleading but the following sentence attributed to the speaker, stands ou‘t, from the rest as the most dishonest and deliberate misrepresentation:— “Whether mortgage-free or not, tho Staitc is going to invade his home and dispose of it as is thought best by the Labour Government of the future.” No one knows better than the wri- | ter of the “Guardian” articles that j the above sentence is meditated falsification. Neither in Mr. O'Brien s speeches, nor in the writings or speeches of any other Labour member can such an intention be found. Timo and time again have Labour men had to refute this lie. It was used against Lord Shaftesbury when lie was agitating against child laj hour in *the factories and the mines, and bringing in legislation that orevented little boys being forced mto tho chimneys a>s sweeps. If. was used against Charles Kingsley when he took the side of the sweated tailors of England. It was used against Bobcr't Owen and William Morris. And it was used again tho late 11. 3. Seddon, when ho chai longed the Tories m .1890. Older people will remember thaf* when Seddon and his friends stumped tee country, they were designated by the capitalist press as the “Seven De-

j vils of Socialism.” It, is strange that ) the “Guardian” writer, who ha.s pr;,1 fessed such friendship for the late Mr. Seddon, and admiration for It.work, should borrow from su journalists, now long dead and gone, phrases with which to damn the progressive movement of to-day! Perhaps it is that the “Gt.r.i-’ writer is slipping, and tha.t, a quarter of a century of capitalist >- cal environment has b<*en too mm for him. The rest of our contemporary's articles may be summed up as a plea for banking institutions, ii> suranee companies, ami large !an<. owners. That banks should be h j.o “fend .for themselves” or that there should be a. State monopoly of accident insurance, or that the large estates be broken up is antlienia to the “Guardian." Xo( once did that paper allude to the ()()©,()()() annual reduction in land and income tax that was put through the 1923-21 Sessions of Parliament, nor to .Mr. O'Brien’s ([notations from tho "Year - Book” and other Government, publications, which weii’t to show that these reductions benefited only the very wealthiest of 'the people. So much for the “Guardian!”