THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23204, 31 May 1937, Page 7

THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

lO THE EDITOH Sir,—When time permits, 1 generally read the correspondence in the open columns of the Daily Times, and the thought that emerges from the perusal is of the freedom which it affords for the discussion of questions of all kinds. The provision of an arena wherein the literary combat may take place is indeed a valuable one. To my mind, it constitutes an effective answer to those politicians who try to discredit the press by unworthy insinuations or direct charges—that it is " capitalistic," unfair, etc. The history of the press in this country will show that the founders of most of the newspapers which to-day hold a high place in the sphere of journalism began with small capital, but they were men of fine character and eminently fair. Progressive and enterprising, they grew with the times and development of this young country, and met the journalistic needs of the community. The names of a number could be given, but one will suffice. Sir George Fenwick, from the humblest post in a newspaper office, rose to eminence in the profession of journalism, and was deservedly honoured by the King for his distinguished service. For the greater part of his life he was associated with the Otago Daily Times, the controlling head. Let those who put on the badge of " humanitananlsm" be reminded that Sir George Fenwick, by personal activity, backed bv his editorial influence, did more than any other individual to expose the evil of "sweating" in industry and bring about a necessary reform. The professed champions of what is implied by " humanitarianism," so far from having a monopoly of the virtue, have small claim to it by the uncharitable spirit they exhibit on subjects of discussion, which generally have more than one side. Then, as to the complaint of " unfairness "against the press, it is discounted by the fact that the offensive allegation itself is given publicity. It is the partisan, lost for argument, who makes the charge. Reverse the positions, and would the privilege of free expression be retained? I think not so. The editorial spirit of toleration towards insolent correspondents is indeed remarkable. As an example. I point to a letter of Mr Mark Silverstone on the discussion of the recent loan proposal. The subsequent ballot amounted to a vote of confidence in the newspaper. If there were a great body of unsatisfied sentiment the obvious course would be the establishment of newspapers to meet the requirement. The position reminds me of an incident which seems to illustrate the point. Two successful gold diggers possessed a small smithy forge, and occasionally others would get the use of it to sharpen their tools. _ The owners became tired of lending it; so, when a " hatter " once again presented himself with a few tools to sharpen the owner replied in broken English: "De las' man vas here he burnt de bellows and broke de anvil. I tell you vot you vas do. You get a little bellows and anvil for yourselfs!" (I knew all the individuals.) The Daily Times has provided the anvil on which truth may be hammered out. It is given to few minds to comprehend the whole truth on any question. Hence the value of discussion, which leads to enlightenment. Milton says: "Let truth and falsehood grapple. Who ever knew truth worsted in a free and open encounter?" Permit me to present as an ideal a quotation from the Quarterly Review of October, 1861: "Not to exceed, and not to fall short of, facts,—not to add and not to take away—to slate the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—are the grand, the vital, maxims of inductive science, of English law, and, let us add, of Christian faith." I commend it particularly to some of your anonymous correspondents, who. while hiding their identity, impute unfair things against the press, relying on the indulgence of the newspaper to publish their base charges Against this unworthy practice of attempted belittlement by correspondents—to which may be added then congeners the partisan politician? on the platform—may be set the testimony of distinguished visitors who have the experience of many countries of the world. These say that the press of New Zealand maintains the very highest standard. Could it be expected that the press, it controlled bv a section saturated with " class consciousness," would perpetuate the privileges that the public now enjoys—the freedom to express opinions? It would be more reasonable to expect that it would approximate that of Russia. Germany or Italy, where the people have to speak in whispers on political questions. Is it not on record that at election meetings in this country—even in Dunedin—organised bands have prevented candidates from getting a fair hearing by overpowering clamour? At the very time of my writing, news comes from Auckland of how Mr Holland. Christchurch M.P., was subjected to the same kind of vulgar treatment when he essayed to criticise the Serimeeour appointment. These facts show that, in place of freedom, there would be the spirit of tyranny in the control of the press if it passed into those other hands—if. say. it were national ised Everyone knows what Langism attempted in New South Wales. I regard personal attacks as cowardly when made behind the .shelter of anonymity, and I think the newspapers would be justified in giving writers who make insidious personal attacks on public men the option of signing their letter? or refusing to publish them anonymously. One of the most momentous political campaigns in the history of

this country is in prospect. At this early stage there are evidences, in what the anonymous writers are doing, of what is going to happen if something is not done to check the abuse of the privilege of a free press.—l am, etc., May 21. . W. J. Marsh.