N.Z. CHIEF CENSOR

Grey River Argus, 18 May 1944, Page 3

N.Z. CHIEF CENSOR

REPLIES TO EDITORS System Here Same as Britain P.A. WELLINGTON, May 17. The Director of Publicity, Mr J. T. Paul, has issued the following reply to the statement made by Messrs E. V. Dumbleton, W. A. Whitlock and P. H. N. Freeth, three of the daily newspaper editors who recently returned to the Dominion from a visit to the United Kingdom. “The question at issue,” said Mr Pau], “is not one of a disagreement as between myself and the British censorship authorities, but of a misinterpretation of the British position, as outlined in a statement, issued two months ago, in the name of three of the editors who formed part of the New Zealand press delegation to the United Kingdom. Their declaration was that the censorship of the press matter published within the United Kingdom is voluntary, and, consequently, in direct opposition to the system in New Zealand, which was described as compulsory. “In their further statement, published on Tuesday, they base this contention of an official memorandum given to them, for their guidance, bv a British censorship official. This memorandum opens by saying: ‘The British press censorship falls into two categories: (1) Matter for publication within the United Kingdom which is not subject to compulsory censorship, but which may be submitted for censorship at the discretion of editors, should they consider that publication of such matter might prove of value to the enemy. This consists of (then follow categories (a) to (f), the .lastnamed reading: (f) cony for distribution by news agencies over their press tape networks)’. “The memorandum then proceeds: ‘Although the matter covered by (f) is only subject to voluntary Censorship, there is a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ between the censorship and the news agencies that they will submit to the censorship all news matter which they propose to use coming from overseas which bears directly or indirectly on the war. They, 'also, agree to submit for censorship all matter which they propose to use derived from news messages collected in the British Isles (including Eire), relating, directly, or indirectly, to the war which, in their judgment, should, as a precautionary measure, be so submitted in the interest of national security “The inference that, the editors draw from this, and wish the public to accent,” continued Mr Paul, is that all press censorship in the United Kingdom is voluntary. In elaboration of the voluntary, censorship, the memorandum has this: Under the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939. Regulation 3 (1), which is to be found quoted in Appendix D. ot the Defence Notices, it is an offence to publish certain material: and, while it is impossible to lay down hard ana fast rules as to what is, or is not, likely to be of value to rhe enemy, it is possible to give guidance on the subject. To this end, editors are supplied with defence notices, which, from time' to time, are amended and brought up to date in c on~ 'sulfation with representatives of the press as occasion demands. . Private and confidential communications to editors are issued, which are, in effect, additions to the Defence Notices.’ The position can be. fairly summarised by saying that certain matters are set out in the . Statutes and Regulations in definite and widely embracing terms, and that publication of these is as definitely prohibited. There is no question of anything but a compulsory censorship so far .as these are concerned. From time to time, the nevyspapers receive certain information concerning specific subjects, which are not to be published. These are known colloquially as ‘stops,’ and they are accepted by the press, as compulsory restrictions. Fundamentally, and for the practical purposes of newspaper production, the differences in censorship administration in the two countries are not vital. In New Zealand the censorship presses very lightly, and the P r 9" cesses are exactly similar up to this point, where the New Zealand Censor has acted on an article submitted to him by a newspaper, his ruling must be accepted. In actual practice, there is small, if any, difference, because in New Zealand, as I in Britain, there is a measure of j voluntary censorship in which the . newspaper co-operate by seeking the ■ ruling--'of the censor when they are I in doubt. In Britain, the newspapers I within certain limits, may flout the censorship’, - but do they? I think the

answer to the question would be so definite that the contention that, in actual practice, the two systems work very much alike would be confirmed. “I must protest, however, at the misuse of a press quotation included in my previous statement. I have not thrown doubt on the quality of the British svstem, or criticised the practice of the censorship in Britain. It would be wrong of me to do anything of the kind. My statement was that: ‘The censorship in the United Kingdom, as in New Zealand,. is based on commensense and fairness, but. that does not prevent periodical outbursts of hostile press criticism. It has not prevented agitations for changes of Ministers of Information in the United Kingdom.’ I quoted newspaper criticism—Mr E. C. Castle, Night News Editor of the ‘Daily Mirror’ who claimed that, under the British svstem, which the three editors had hailed as being so much superior to our own, ‘there is a deliberate, definite, and damnable censorship of opinion going on.’ To suggest that my own words threw doubt on the quality of the British censorship, or that my language was open to that construction, is a distortion. Once again, I say Jhat some day the full story of the helpful co-operation between the New Zealand press and -the censorship will be told. Few editors publicise the censor as a nuisance—fortunately many regard him as co-operator with them in furthering the national war effort.” - ,