PRESS v. LABOUR

Grey River Argus, 19 May 1938, Page 7

PRESS v. LABOUR

DISCRIMINATION SHOWN

Hon. P. C. Webb’s Warning

[Per Press Association.] CHRISTCHURCH, May 18. Newspapers and the Press Associa ? tion received another broadside <. 1 t Government thunaer, last night. This ; time, the barrage was fired by th’ ; Minister of Mines (Mr. Webb), when > he addressed a meeting at St. An . drew’s telegraphs the “Star-Sun” re . porter. Mr. Webb said that he and all other ; Ministers fully supported the statements made by Mr Nash, when he re erred to the attitude of the newspapers in the course of his broadcast address on Monday night. A section of the metropolitan newspapers was definitely hostile to thp Government, said Mr Webb. Though they made frequent references to the amount of space devoted to reporting the speeches and activities of Government members, the newspapers couhnor disguise the fact that they were prepared to go to any lengths to con real the true facts from the public. “All along the Government has ask ed for nothing more than fair play, it does not want any more from its opponents than it is prepared to concede to them,” declared Mr Webb. “It is satisfied it has not received fair play, and that it cannot expect fair play In future. If the newspapers are seeking open warfare, they can have it. If they persist in their present attitude of telling only half the story, tnen the Government will take other means of making its policy known. The concession to the newspapers m reduced telegraph rates cost the country over £200,000 last "year. Unless a fair sense of proportion is interpreted in the production of newspapers from day to day, those concessions may be revised.”

Mr Webb added it was unfair tactics and definite evidence of hostility on the part of newspapers to take advan tage of the reduced telegraph charges to spread propaganda for a political party whose policy suited them, and refuse the same publicity to their opponents. Emphasising his treat that the Government was in the mood to review the telegraph concessions, Mr Webb said that Mr Nash in his speech at the Hutt had expressed correctly the feeling of Cabinet. He was also of the opinion that the Government would have support. The concensus of opinion was that the newspapers in the metropolitan centres, by adhering to (he policy of shielding the motives of the group of capitalists, had divorced themselves from public sympathy Current editorial comment was not a reflection of the political opinion of the mass of the people. The Dominion needed roads, bridges and rail-

ways, as well as houses for its work ers, and it had a Government which was striving to give it those facilities, which were the foundation of progress. Quite reasonably it could expect a measure of support from the Press, but instead of support, it had encountered opposition. Mr Webb made a change that discrimination had been shown against the Government in news columns of several newspapers. He added that recently when introducing a new candidate to the electors in Pahiatua and pannevirke, he had been received en thusiastically by overcrowded rneetings, but no notice was taken of this by the Press Association. Similarly not a line had appeared outside, Rotorua, concerning a meeting conducted in that town by Mr Semple last Wednesday. Mr Semple’s audience overcrowded the hall, and loud speakers were necessary to convey Mr Semple’s words to the overflow outside. On the other hand, when a Minister or responsible member of the Government made an accidental slip his words were snapped up and teie-j graphed throughout the country. “The Government only want tne Press to play the game and give the 'people all the news,” Mr Webb concluded.

WHAT MR NASH SAID. Unjust discrimination by the Press against the Government and the Labour movement was alleged by Minister of Finance, Hon. W. Nash, in his address at Lower Hutt * think it is due to the public that they should be made aware of this, he said. . “Criticism is the very essence oi progress, but it should have an e e ment of integrity and truth and should be meted out evenly to all parties The daily papers, with some rare exceptions, are unfair, biased, partisan and sometimes vicious in their procedure and methods. Let me give the evidence of one of the cleanest and most straight-forward men that has ever been in the pohtical life of this Dominion, the Hon. Mr Sullivan.

greymouth incident. “ Tn parts of January and February, 1937, I was engaged in an inspection of the railway system on the West Coast of the South Island,’ Mr Sullivan told me. ‘The receptions accorded me wherever I went by gatherings of the people were of a most enthusiastic character. The Ministerial party was accompanied by two very competent superior reporters representing Christchurch newspapers. The reports on the incident of the tour were madest accounts of the enthusiastic receptions accorded me. At Greymouth, I was approached by one of the reporters who appeared to be sincerely distressed he placed in my hands a telegram which he gave me permission to retain. The telegram was addressed to the reporter, and signed with the name of the paper by which he was employed. The telegram contained this instruction: “Stop the Sullivan glorification serial.” The reporter in conversation with me strongly resented the implication that he was writing me up, and the improper interference to which he was subjected.’ ” LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. Mr Nash also stated that Mr Sullivan had told him that on a newspaper on which he was once employed as a reporter it was the practice of the editor, most mornings, to go to the desks of the more senior members of the staff and instruct them to write letters to the editor on subjects named by him, for publication in that evening’s issue of the paper. Those letters would convey the impression

when published that they had been ’Written by members of the general public.