MR FISHER IN DEFENCE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7867, 1 August 1911, Page 4

MR FISHER IN DEFENCE

Mr Fisher's vehement denial of the correctness of the interview published by Mr W. T. Stead seems to be the measure of that exceedingly able but somewhat erratic journalist's iniquity, Mr Stead stands convicted of two grave faults against the first principles of the “ interview.” An interview is an occasion on which some person is invited to address the public through the interviewer. It follows, therefore, that he must understand before he speaks that it is an. occasion for deliberation. The second principle of the “interview ” is that the interviewed should have a copy of what the interviewer intends to place before the public. It is an obvious precaution, for if a man is to bo held responsible for the things alleged to have been said by him he must have the opportunity of stating them correctly from Ilia point of view. Now, it was said by a follow guest of Mr Fisher’s on the occasion of the so-called “interview” that he knew Mr Fisher was not aware that he had been “ interviewed ” at ; all, in the sense usually applied to that word, and that he newer had! seen any proof of the report of his alleged state, ments. This was sufficient evidence to sustain the suggestion for suspension of judgment until Mr Fisher should throw light on the matter. Now that Mr Fisher has spoken he has made it evident that the suspension of judgment was an act of bare justice. His statement has shown that Mr Stead broke the rules of tbe “ interview.” ' He never told his victim of the use he intended to make of _ his words, leaving him under the impression that he was merely chatting with a man of some prominence who desired to have some guidance for his own course in the future, if indeed he was not in the position of a caller actuated by simple goodwill. Moreover, having obtained some statement ho proceeded to publish it without giving the other side an opportunity of seeing

what ifc was the public was going to road as Ids statement made after duo consideration and fullest weighing of Ills responsibilities as a man holding power under condition of allegiance to the King- In plain English, Hr Fisher was .made to appear as a sort of filibuster ready to go out on the independent path at a moment’s notice. "We hawo no doubt that Hr Stead acted in perfect good faith, but his usefulness as an interviewer and publicist must be gravely compromised by this incident. Hr Fisher has cleared himself handsomely of the charge against his loyalty to Australia and the Empire. He appeals to his own history for corroboration of his version of what took place, and this will appeal specially to those who know his history. But as there must bo many men throughout the Empire who do not know tho history of Hr Fisher lie did well to add an uncompromising, unmistakable statement of his attitude. He characterised the statement attributed to him as not only disloyal, brutal, and monstrous, hut as positively insane. No one can ask for more than this.