THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIV, Issue 282, 8 November 1924, Page 3

THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—On reading your footnote at the end of my last lettetr, 1 did really feel sorry for you as there is a corner of my heart that always feels kindly towards you. You should not, however, show your feelings so easily when the fact gets home. Remember, that for some weeks the writer had been reading “Tribune” “leaders” in silence, though they were to him a series of one-sided plausabilities. It is futile to squirm on account of unpleasant facts which every one is familiar with. Now let me substantiate. Tho late Lord Rhondda, when questioned about his investments in so many newspapers, frankly confessed that it was to protect and further his business interests. Then tho late Lord Northcliffe claimed that by the power of his papers he could make and unmake Governments. Everybody also knows it to bo a commonplace that the press of to-day has lost the editorial individuality that it had, say. twenty years ago. It is a well-known truth that many of our foremost editors, when their paper changed proprietors, could not accept the proposed conditions. Nearer home, when tho Reform party adopted that name it tried to create the impression that it was a brand new party by purchasing and starting newspapers, which largely helped to put them into power. One does not blame them for that, but it is well to keep such facts in mind, for no matter how unpleasant they “winna ding.” Dreams are of no account in my scheme of things* they often come from stomach or kidney trouble. The inmost significance of the British flag is that the majority must rule, and in the nature of things that means the Labour party. Nothing on earth can change the evident course of politics the whole world over. Old things must pass away. Of course, when speaking of the press, it was m a general sense, and it does not surprise me that you did not like it. What do you make of the resignation of H. W. Massingham, who had to resign from his high editorial position for conscience sake at the time of the Boer war? Again, when the “Nation” was sold he had to go, although he was one of the most brilliant of writers in the British press. George Meredith wrote of him. “that his descriptive articles were the best of the kind ever written.” He had to resign, or be a slave, in conscience, to vested interests. Of course, a journalist of his stamp could easily find space for anything he wrote, but he was a martyr all the same, a victim to the god Mammon. He was on the side of humanity and delighted to be on the side of Dr. Clifford, Dr. Orchard, F. A. Atkins, Wilson Harris and Ramsay MacDonald in pleading the rights of the common people. Such facts may show what truth is in my. statement about the modern press.—l am, etc., HUMANITY.

We thank you for your kindly feclings towards us, dear ‘ 1 Humanity, ’ ’ but really there is no need for you to have sorrow in your heart. If you feel likewise towards every one whose views conflict with your own, your cup will indeed be full. The inference contained in your refernce to recent leaders that, the “Tribune’s”’ policy is dictated by vested interests, is altogether un warranted and is entirely unworthy of you, and by bringing it forward you dis close how little you know of the ideals of journalism and the principles generally governing the conduct of the pres* It is not the facts, but the fallacies — fallacies created, and kept alive, bv those who write and talk as you do—that everyone is familiar with. Lt seems necessary to inform you that onr> swallow does not make a summer, n«r one Lord Rhondda or one Lord Northcliffe set a general standard of the ethics of journalism. If your memory wap operating, you would not have forgotten that the “Tribune” condemned, in ho moderate terms, the dictatorial methods of Lord Northcliffe while be was on earth controlling his group of papers. If it is personal or syndicate ownership of many papers that you are out against wo are with you, for that is a system which makes possible abuses of tho powers and privileges of the press, and may lead to the degrading of the profession of journalism. But tnis does not apply to private ownership of single newspapers. It is to the interest of the people that they should have contending opinions on political questions placed before them, and individually owned newspapers provide tho best vehicle for that purpose. That system of ownership is also a safeguard against journalists falling from grace in tha way you erroneously declare they already have done. Publicists and writers generally gravitate to the journal whose policy harmonises with their own, and the views they express arc sincere. It is not a fact that “everybody knows it to be a commonplace that the press of to-day has lost tho individuality it had years ago.” And are you not arguging

against your own argument the “the press is tho slave of tho capitalist and the foe of tho people” when you say that it is a well known truth that many of our foremost editors, when their papers changed proprietorship could not accept tho proposed conditions. Yom reference to H. W. Massingham’s resignations shows that journalists are not tho mcrccrnary slaves you would have us believe they are. Again, you are stating what is not true, when you make the statement that the New Zealand Reform party purchased and started newspapers which largely helped to put them in power. Tho only one paper that supporters of the party can be said to have been instrumental in starting or purchasing was tho “Dominion,” and that paper was largely established by Wellington people,, because Us contemporary was so notoriously onesided in its politics. Nor can the Reform Party’s ascendancy to power bo credited to tho “Dominion’s” political in fluence. It is published in Wellington, and of that city’s six electorates (inculding tho Hutt), three aro represented by Labour, one by Liberal, and only two by Reform. Regarding your statement that “the majority must rule,” is it not doing so to-day? Labour is represented in all parties. Where you make a mistake is in acccrediting tho Political Labour Party as the representatives of Labour, whereas they represent the extremists whoso aim is not democratic rule but class rule. “Old things must pass away.”—Are not honesty of purpose, chivalry, loyalty to and prido in country, Christian conduct and belief, respect for another’s property, and aTI the other virtues “old things?” Must they pass away? You write, unthinkingly, perhaps, as a revolutoinist of the Russian type, which you are not, being yourself one of tho small props of the larger pillars which hold up civilisation. Massingham was not alone in being on tho side of humanity, nor was his voice a solo raised in pleading the rights of tho common people. There have been and aro others, and they were and nrc distributed through all classes, creeds, and political parties. Analysed .even crudely, your letter contains nothing to support your statement about tho modern press in general. Your attack should be directed alono against the present day tendency in England towards group ownership of newspaper®. Concerning these we Quote in our leader today tho views of Mr Frederick Peaker, M.A., presdont of the British Institute of Journalists. You will probably find yourself in accord with thiM A -Ed. “H.8.T.”