UNFAIR REPORTING

Northern Advocate, 22 August 1929, Page 8

UNFAIR REPORTING

MEMBERS’ FEELINGS HURT,

(From Our Parliamentary Special.)

WELLINGTON, Tuesday

The tender feelings of legislators regarding reporting of their speeches were recently roused through the failure of a .section of the Press to give, both aides in the taxation arguments. Their complaints were voiced in an urgent question to the Prime Minister today from Mr H. E. Holland, Leader of the Laibour Party. He asked whether, in view of the marked discrimination shown by certain newspapers in the matter of reporting speeches from certain sections of the House, he would take steps to secure fair and impartial reporting. (Air Holland went on to explain that he was referring particularly to the Parliamentary reports of the Wellington * ‘Dominion'' and to some extent on the part of the Auckland “Herald."

Air A. Harris (Waitemata): And the Auckland “Star."

Mr Holland: Yes, and to a lesser extent the Auckland “(Star.' The Christchurch “Star" was a little more fair. Last week the speech of the member for mid-Ganteibury was reported almost in full, while that of the member for Llttelton in reply was practically suppressed. The speech of the member for Stratford was extensively reported, but Labour members who replied to him were cut down to a minimum. Another instance occurred early in the session, when Air Jones was extensively reported, while the speech of the Minister of Education w r as “condensed down to suppression point." Mr Holland concluded by asking if the Prime Alinister would consult with Mr Speaker with a view to making provision for what he desired.

“I have noticed a difference in reporting," replied Sir Joseph Ward. “And I think the House generally noticed that a speech by Mr Jones —"

Mr Nash (Palmerston North); Good stuff

Sir Joseph Ward: It was one of the most unfair speeches I have ever listened to. I noticed the speech of the member for Lyttelton—a capital speech (Reform laughter)^—and a complete answer to the member for Mid-Canter-bury on every material point he raised. Mr Speaker intervened to indicate that the Prime Minister was straying somewhat from the limits of a reply to a question.

Sir Joseph smilingly accepted the correction, and repeated that he had noticed a difference in the reporting of different members, but he did not know in what way that difficulty could be met. [Members would take the opportunity of putting their yiews on record and endeavour to educate the public regarding the unfairness which had been distinctly shown when the speeches on one side were fully reported while the replies to them were suppressed, and no answer published to the criticism. It was absolutely unfair.

Mr Harris (Waitemata): My speech was not reported at all in the Auckland ‘ ‘ Star. ’ ' (Laughter.) Sir Joseph: I don't think anyone would report it, and if they did I would not report it. (Renewed laughter.) But it is obviously unfair that only one set of arguments in the financial debate should be reported. (Opposition laughter.) “I can quite understand the laughing chorus," added Sir Joseph indignantly.

(Mr Barnard (Napier): The cracking of thorns.

Sir Joseph: If there is any way in which wo can, obviate the great discrepancy in reporting it will be most cheerfully done.