WHY NOT FAIR PLAY?

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8364, 26 February 1913, Page 6

WHY NOT FAIR PLAY?

When Sir Joseph Ward was in po«v> er. the Hon. W. F. Massey gave utterance to a periodical whine in the House because the Government did not insert its advertisements in the squatters’ organ. The reply of Sir Joseph, whether fair or otherwise, was that the advertising service was satisfactorily rendered by two old-establish-ed journals, and that it was contrary to Government custom to subsidise newly-started newspapers. Wo mention this merely to show that Mr Massey made much political capital by asserting that discrimination was shown against one newspaper, that this system was unprincipled and wicked, and that he would act very differently when ho came into power. Now, wo propose to furnish evidence to show; that Mr Massey was insincere, that hia practice in office proves that ho is inconsistent, and we allege against him, with the fullest confidence, political hypocrisy and vindictiveness. There is matter far more important to a newspaper than advertisements, and that is public news, and especially that part of it relating to loan flotation and depart, mental administration. The Hon. W. P. Massey himself, and several of hia Ministers, notably the Hon. F. M. B. Fisher, are scrupulous to see that every item of this news is given exclusively to Government newspapers. There are honourable exceptions to this wretched policy of discrimination, including the Hons. A. L. Hardman, W. H. Harries, and W. Fraser, but the chief offender is the Hon. W. F. Massey, the man whose perennial whine concerning the squatters’ journal passed muster as an honest protest of principle. Every day, a representative of this journal waits on Mr Massey, and every day he is refused information especially asked for, which is passed on to the squatters’ organ. Now this is a thing that Sir Joseph Ward never did. In the matter of public news, which belongs to the people, every newspaper, whatever its political convictions, was placed on an equal footing. In mentioning this matter, wo are not complaining. Wo know our Massey, we know that ho can be small-minded and vindictive in these matters, and it is a fair thing to contrast his former professions with his present practice. Other Opposition newspapers, however, complain more bitterly of the injustice they are compelled to suffer- Take, for example, the “Timaru Post." Hers is what it says: “We hays mentioned more than once daring recent months a practice that seems to be very popular among the Reform Ministers, that ofl supplying information exclusively to those newspapers which support tho party in power. A case id point occurred The Reform journals in the principal cities of the Dominion published yesterday morning the list of promotions and transfers in the Customs Department which appeared in this journal yesterday afternoon; but the Liberal newspapers were printed without this exceedingly intereeting item of news. Tho reason was, of course, that the Minister of Customs, or an officer acting under hia instructions, bad furnished this information to the Reform journal in Wellington, and had carefully concealed it from tho morning newspaper in that oity that does not subscribe to the platform of the land monopolists. In this case tho employment pf tho Reform method of favouritism amounts to a political crime of a particularly . despicable kind. Every day brings forth fresh evidence of the selfishness that is the most prominent characteristic of the Reformers. With the reins in their hands they no longer are trying to hide their real aims. Their object in getting into power was utterly selfish, _ and their every action is dope in the interests of one class, the class of fat men and monopolists who finance their political exploits. Anyone who looks calmly and dispassionately at what is going on can see that in a moment, and those of ils who do not like the Reform methods are compelled to realise that we must suffer them for some little time to come. But when the Reformers try L> add to their other monopolies a monopoly of news it is time to make a protest. Wo make it not so much on behalf- of tho newspapers that have to compete against unfair practices as on account of th« public. A Government has no riglit to distribute such informjition through specially favoured channels; indeed, when it does so it is actually robbing a section of the people of something that belongs to it. On moral grounds the Reform method of distributing news is utterly indefensible, hut unhappily there is no immediate means by which the public may seek protection against this species of robbery. When the time cornea tho electors will do well to' remember that in the distribution of news, as in the distribution of land, the first thought, and the only thought, of the Reformers has been for themselves.”