PRESS CENSORSHIPS

Grey River Argus, 20 May 1944, Page 6

PRESS CENSORSHIPS

Britain and N.Z. DIRECTOR OF PUBLICITY .REPLIES. P.A. WELLINGTON May 19. The Director of Publicity, Mr. J. T. Paul, has issued the following comment on the reply of three of the newspaper editors who formed part or the recent press delegation to Great Britain on the subject of the British censorship: “The editors criticise my reply on account of its length, and then complain that I omitted essential points in the memorandum, which, by the way, runs into some 2000 woros. This shows that it is impossible, and not wholly profitable, to discuss within the limits of newspaper space the application of the press censorship in even one country. My reason for not quoting sub clauses of the memorandum is simply explained —'the editors declare that the British system is wholly voluntary. My contention is that this interpretation is incorrect, and suggests a misreading of the memorandum on whichtheir argument is based. The memorandum discloses that a large measure of compulsory censorship exists, and it then declares that matter which comes under voluntary censorship is of several kinds. None of these affects the point at issue, but it was necessary to cite category (F) because it mentioned news received through news agencies, whether by hand or through tape machines. The editors appear to underestimate the volume of press agency news which British newspapers publish, but, in point of fact, this volume is very large. Many newspapers, including the great national dailies, rely on the agencies for the bulk of their news, and some carry surprisingly small reporting staffs, the members of which are principally special writers, so that, in bringing the agencies, by means of an agreement, under full censorship where the war, directly or indirectly, was involved, the censorship secured a large measure of control. “My disagreement with the editors’ interpretation is that they declare the United Kingdom system to be wholly voluntary. My .point is that, as the memorandum indicates, it is part compulsory, part voluntary; and that in New Zealand censorship is exactly the same. The point of divergence, as I have alreadv explained, is that, in theory, British newspapers j,vho have sought the censor’s guidance, may, within the limits indicated in the memorandum, ignore it. In New Zealand, when the censor has given his decision, to ignore it is an offence. I would add that, in actual practice, British newspapers do not ignore the censor’s guidance., “The editors appear to have overlooked', also, the significance of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939. Regulation 3 of these regulations is titled. ‘General Provisions for Safeguarding Information,’ and. in addition to prohibiting the publication of information on purely mlitary matters, lays down that it is an offence to publish 'any matter-whatsoever information as to which would, or might, directly or indirectly, be useful to the enemy.’ Surely, the editors will agree that this provision carries all the compulsion of law. On 23rd November, 1939, an Order-in-Council amending the Defence (General) Regulations provided that no person shall endeavour by means of any false statement, false document, or false report, to influence public opinion (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the efficient prosecution of the war.’ Undei’ the same Order-in-C'ouncil, the Secretary of State is empowered to ‘prevent or restrict the publication in the United Kingdom of matters of which publication or unrestricted publication, as the case might be, would, or might,_ in his opinion, be prejudicial to relations between the United Kingdom and _anv country outside the United Kingdom, or to any transactions in process of being effected, or proposed to be effected, between His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and persons in any country. Here, again, wide powers have been given to the Minister of the Crown in the interests of the safety of the State. Would the editors say that this regulation comes under the category of voluntary censorship? ' “I have never hesitated, concluded Mr. Paul, “to discuss with any editor, or with any of the press organisations, the practical application of the censorship. My administration has been based on commonsense and co-operation, and a nre'ss censorship cannot satisfactorily be applied in any other spirit.’’