WRONG ONCE MORE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7448, 24 May 1911, Page 6

WRONG ONCE MORE

Our morning contemporary . has been good enough to make an attack upon tho Wellington agents of the New Zealand Press Association. Of course it is hopelessly wrong in its facts. Though the plural, “agents,” is used in some references to the matter under discussion, it is not in all, for it is asserted that tho association’s “agent,” in “concocting” a telegram concerning a recent lawsuit in this city sent one affidavit almost in full and entirely suppressed all reference to a more important affidavit in reply. While “not speculating” as to the motives behind this “very serious plan” to spread a false impression abroad, our contemporary feels satisfied to observe that “it is exactly like some previous performances by the persons concerned," who “have sent forth messages which have been biased and misleading, and, onoe, utterly false” ; and “the persons " re-

sponsible for this ‘poisoning of tho wells’ ” arc described as incurable. xVs usual the Government is dragged into this rigmarole by the statement that tho Press Association is a public institution enjoying rich privileges at the hands of tho public “acting through tho Government.” Now it happens that nearly all of the Press Association matter Supplied to the morning newspapers throughout Now Zealand is despatched from the “Now Zealand Times” office. Our contemporary knows this and the meaning of its comments hero under notice is that messages are deliberately “coloured” by tho agent employed to do that work, and sometimes actually falsified, in order that tho readers of other newspapers may ho deceived; The general charge is, absurd. No board of directors or subscribing newspapers would tolerate such conduct for five minutes. So far as tho particular charge is concerned it so happens that not .one lino or word of the telegram reporting the lawsuit referred to —a message in which all previous efforts in the way of misrepresentation are said to be outdone — issued from tho “Times” office or from tho agent of the Press Association ! The agent referred to did not “concoct” the telegramj—he had nothing to do with it, he never saw it, nor did anyone connected with this newspaper. The quite baseless charge against tho agent of the Press Association is not at all surprising, but tho entire disregard shown of any obligation to secure evidence before making a damaging attack upon a private individual affords another and a very good illustration of irresponsible mudsliuging.