THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, APRIL 5, 1937 ATTACK ON THE PRESS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22694, 5 April 1937, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, APRIL 5, 1937 ATTACK ON THE PRESS

An* amazing tirade against newspapers was delivered from IZB radio station last evening by the ( controller of the National Commercial ' Broadcasting Service, Mr. C. G. Scrimgeour. This attack by a civil servant will be connected in the 1 public mind with the onslaughts recently made on the Press by members of the Government. They begin to take the appearance of an organised campaign of vilification, and the people may well ponder on the motives animating an apparently a concerted offensive. They will also i wonder at the methods used, if they care to peruse the wild utterances broadcast by Mr. Scrimgeour, a professing Christian minister serving on the Friendly Road. They can judge for themselves whether Mr. Scrimgeour himself displays the restraint and decency he so freely ■ prescribes for others. His statements will not bear a moment's examin- . ation or reflection by any thinking , man or woman. Take, for instance, his assertion that for years the Press has dominated every public man, held the whip over him, and could damn him without his having any medium of reply. What evidence ; can Mr. Scrimgeour or anyone else bring in support of this fantastic l assertion ? Where are the public ' men who have been dominated and damned by the Press ? Mr. Scrimgeour should name some, or even one. Any newspaper knows that if attacks on a public man are overdone or unreasonable or unfair, public sentiment reacts in that man's favour. There is the classic instance of the embittered attacks . by the Rothermere and Beaverbrook newspapers in London against Mr. Stanley Baldwin. He was neither dominated nor damned ; instead his attackers prepared the way for Mr. Baldwin's public triumph and vindication, a point Mr. Scrimgeour might note before he next discusses the British Prime Minister over the air. On Mr. Scrimgeour's next charge, the publication of filth, the public as daily readers can judge whether this charge lies against the daily newspapers of New Zealand. If that is not sufficient, people with a close respect for canons of decency —New Zealanders and visitors of standing and character —have testified to the high standards and good tone maintained by the daily Press. The public as a whole appreciate and are proud of the clean journalism in this country, Mr. Scrimgeour notwithstanding. When he says that the opposition of the Press caused the shelving for years of the Judicial Reports Bill, restricting the publication of certain details in divorce and other judicial proceedings, he states what is not true. The Press has not organised opposition to the bill, and some newspapers have favoured its passage. In 1934 the Herald took a generally favourable attitude while pointing out the objections in the general public interest to placing too many limits on the reporting of Court proceedings. What happened to the bill was this: For years it was introduced by a private member, Mr. P. Eraser, and shared the fate of many other excellent private bills in failing to pass. Last year it was introduced as a Government measure by the Minister of Justice, Mr. Mason. There was no opposition in Parliament and nothing to prevent its enactment, the Government possessing an overwhelming majority, but it did not pass. That is the fact. Perhaps Mr. Scrimgeour can explain it. Perhaps also he can explain who is Swinton, whom he described as . editor of the New York Times. Will Mr. Scrimgeour answer these ques- " tions: Who is Swinton 1 When did he live? Was he ever editor of the ' New York Times and, if so, when? In what circumstances did he make the grave statement attributed to him? Mr. Scrimgeour should know the authority for quotations of such a nature before he proceeds to broadcast them and be able to vouch for them. An example of the reliance to be laid on Mr. Scrimgeour's word is offered by his statement that the newspapers would not accept adver- • tisements drawing attention to radio programmes unless paid at double rates. This is simply not true. As for his extraordinary rigmarole about the part played by the Press in the abdication of King Edward VIII., the people can once again judge for themselves. The events in that tragic affair arc so recent, and have been so painfully impressed on the public mind, as to need no reiteration. But the public will remember that the Press in New Zealand, in Britain and throughout the Empire, observed strict reticence ' until official notice was taken of the ex-King's affairs. Then concealment was no longer possible, and the fullest accounts were published on all aspects of an issue of the gravest concern to every British country and " every British subject. The suggestion that there was a plot, at which the Press connived, to force Edward's abdication, is ridiculous having regard to all the facts, or to the full account of them as given by Mr. i Baldwin to the Commons, or to the voice of Edward himself, as clearly and finely broadcast to the uttermost ends of the earth. Mr. Scrimgeour is doing no service to the Throne, the British Empire, or to democratic and representative institutions by giving broadcast publicity and circulation to such nonsense, If he is setting up to be censor and mentor of the Press, he should begin by making sure of his facts. The public can judge and has, in fact, become accustomed to higher standards from those very newspapers Mr. Scrimgeour attempts to vilify*