PRESS OF THE EMPIRE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19373, 8 January 1925, Page 12

PRESS OF THE EMPIRE.

STANDARD OF BRITISH JOURNALISM. “BIG BROTHER OF FLEET STREET.” INSTITUTE OF JOURNALISTS. • (From Our Own Correspondent.’! LONDON, December 3. At the annual dinner of tho London district of 'he Institute of Journalists Mr J. P. Collins (in tho chair)’ proposed the toast of “The Press and the Empire.” He referred to (he visit of tho Empire Press Union to Canada as tho greatest trek on record. Ho hoped Lord Burnham would say something about his trip to South Africa. Lord’ Burnham had put new life into tho press of South Africa, and there was no doubt that his coming trip to Australia would be attended by a similar result. Tho title of “Father of Fleet Street” having already boon conferred (upon Mr T. P. O’Connor, M.P.), ’ho would call Lord Burnham tho “Big Brother of Fleet Street.” THE RULE OF THE JOURNALIST. Viscount Burnham said journalists did not argue alioit tho power of tho press; they took it for granted. A groat English cynic said that the President of tho United States reigned for four years; tho journalist ruled for over and ever. They had it on much higher authority than their own that the British Empire could not have held together if it Had not been for tho fact that throughout its length and breadth tho newspaper press had always boon on the side of tho commonwealth. Tho press had been Imperial to a far greater extent than Cabinets and Governments, certainly during tho last 50 years. Wo had scon in Downing street from time to time a coldness and jealousy which had given to that great homo of Government an ill-omened name in many parts of the British Empire. Newspapers had always been enthusiastic and resolute for tho maintenance and strengthening of tho bonds that united the Empire, and on (he whole the Empire had reason to bo proud of its press. Cecil Rhodes said: ‘T always speak in tho comparative.” As compared with tho press of other countries, those who stood for tho press of tho commonwealth of nations had no reason to be ashamed. Lord Milner had said that tho British Empire could never have boon aligned for the Great War in tho manner in which it was if there had not been that consolidation and concentration of affections and loyalties to which tho imperial Press Conference of 1909 gave embodiment. They were resolved to pursue tho policy to which expression was then giien and to maintain it through tho agency of tho Empire Press Union. Next year they hoped to take advantage of the great hospitality which was being proffered by the Commonwealth of Australia and tho dominion of New Zealand. In getting a full measure of understanding between the newspapers of tho Empire they were possibly accomplishing just as much as, if not more than, the Imperial Conferences which had sat in London before and since the war. At any rule, they hoped to mould public opinion in the right direction. In South Africa, u s in Canada, Lord Burnham found the same pride in the standard of British journalism South African papers wore maintaining tho traditions which had boon established here. It was, perhaps, tho great feature of tho press of the Empire that it was modelled on the old forms and on the old rules of our newspaper press. Journalists in this country could take it as Haltering unction to their souls that they could not have done so badly if all the young countries living under the Union Jack were anxious to follow their example. Above all, tho newspaper press of South Africa, with few exceptions, stood for loyalty to the Crown and loyalty to tho flag. -Members of the press had every reason to congratulate themselves that in tho conferences which they were holding at fixed periods t)3 time they wore taking thoir share in keeping together the different countries which made up the British Commonwealth and without them ho did not believe any League of Nations would bo worth keeping in existence.—(Cheers.) “’THE FATHER OF FLEET' STREET.” Mr T, P, O’Connor spoke of the biographies which ho was in the habit of writing for tho Daily Telegraph. Sometimes ho was called tho “undertaker” and sometimes tho "First Gravedigger.”— (Laughter.) There were two curious things about that part of his professional life; one was that if ho spent tho morning writing a biography of a distinguished parliamentarian, the subject of that biography was certain to bo the first man ho met on going to tho House of Commons in the afternoon. Tho other curious fact was that in writing u biography ho invariably assured the man an additional five or 10 years of life.— (Laughter.) Speaking of the relations between the Mother Country and the dominions, Mr O’Connor said that it was impossible that we should have behind us, as we did during the war, that love, that understanding, that intimate spiritual relation between tho dominions and ourselves if tho journalists of these countries were not bound together by mutual understanding. Ho believed Lord Burnham had done more to consolidate tho Empire on that great, momentous, and most important basis, more for tho Imperialisation of tho British Empire, than any Colonial Secretary who had had charge of colonial relations. —(Cheers.) Referring to his early days in journalism, Mr O’Connor remarked that if now he was able to show toleration and to keep on equally good terms with Englishmen and Irishmen —with his Protestant and Catholic fellow-countrymen —it was because ho owed a great deal to tho sound doctrine of toleration which he received as a young reporter on a Protestant, Orange, Unionist paper. In those days ho hoard a lot about the Church of Rome and about priests. He recalled the difficulty they nad in the early days in humanising journalism. To bring in anything like the human or personal touch was then considered a crime against good taste, and it was to tho credit of the father of Lord Burnham that he was tho first man to break the chain of frigidity. To-day they were perhaps too much interested in "the human side. As regards tho reporting of divorce cases, (be suggestion had been made that such reports should bo censored. He did not agree with that. There could be no middle course. It was a case either of suppression or of freedom, the matter being left to tho responsibility and good sense and good taste of the editor. Ho was inclined to favour the Trench system, - under which all that could bo published was tho name of tho petitioner and of the respondent. Ho waa not sure that the name of tho co-respondent could bo published. He did not see why tho ioumalist should interfere in the disputes between men and women and when it came to the intimacies of married life they had reached a point which almost made him sick. To suggest that the reporting of divorce cases was a safeguard of conjugal fidelity was absurd.