WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1912. THE POWER OF THE PRESS.

Rodney and Otamatea Times, Waitemata and Kaipara Gazette, 21 August 1912, Page 4

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1912. THE POWER OF THE PRESS.

When Sir Joseph Ward consulted with newspaper editors in preference to the representatives of the people upon his proposal to donate a battleship to the Homeland, we thought Parliament would have dealt with the circumstance. Beyond the remonstance of a few individual members nothing was said or done. v

The acknowledgment of the power of the Press by the members of the present Parliament is most striking-. A cursory glance through Hansard report of the late No Confidence debate led to the counting of quotations given by right honourable members of the remarks or reports of at least eleven different newspapers, to say nothing of Mr Laurenson, who dealt with the newspaper prdss of a whole district without specifying1 the names of. the journals. It is true one member mildly rebuked his colleagues by declaring that he never would refer to a newspaper in the course of his parliamentary orations. His was a voice from the past. His more up-to-date brethren proceeded to fretfully bear testimony to the importance of the newspapers, and by the tens of references to the Wellington journal "The Dominion " to advertise to the world the leading position to which it has attained.

The sensitiveness to criticism on the part of the members of the Lower House is certainly not in 1 keeping with the dignity which should be their portion. Mr Laurenson complained that "the Dominion newspaper came out with a leadiag article on Christmas Eve demanding to know when Joseph Ward and his wife and family were going to vacate the house they were living in, and reminding them that it was not their own property, but the property of the nation. I will guarantee that there is not a man on the Government benches to-day who will not repudiate that sort of thing."

Mr Fisher followed with another complaint. The New Zealand Times had said : —"All through the sitting he (Mr Fisher) was simply bursting to get on his feet, and when at last he did so, he addressed members with a personal flippancy which led to the Speaker directing attention to the rules of debate." 'Why,' continued His Majesty's Minister of Customs for the Dominion of New Zealand, "the honourable member knows that is the Opposition paper—the New Zealand Times—which is consistently publishing these absolute and wilful untruths; and the members of this House know tbem to be untrue."

"While freely admitting that neither of the abor9 pars do credit to the papers in wbueb. they appeared, yet are not our legislators making themselves cheap by taking so much notice of such small matters ? There was much wisdom in the action of Frederick the Great, who instead of passing the caricatures of himself with the resolve to have someone's blood spilt for the outrage, rode up to the hoarding and laughed at the depiction, and then never bothered his head any further about it. Even Mr Laurenson, who has had perhaps the most to say regarding the conduct of the New Zealand press, suddenly remembers that " a newspaper may achieve a certain amount of notoriety by being abusive and personal for a few years, but the

time comes when the public weigh the paper in the balance and it is found wanting." . .

Then the House proceeded to pass Hr Hindmash's Legislature Amendment -bill through its second reading. Its main provisions are, that between the issue of the writs and the election, political articles shall be signed by the writer, that the word "advertisement" shall be printed as a headline over all electoral matter that is to be paid for, and a return of the same is to be made, or a penalty not exceeding £500 nor less than £200 shall be incurred. Perhaps journalists should be thankful that the working men's member for Wellington South believed them to be so well endowed with this world's goods. What is the worth of the proposed restrictions ? The liability for libel claims will still rest on the publishers of papers. The supporters of the innovation claim that it will not affect newspapers of high character, even though the unintentional omission of the one word " advertisement " may cost £500 and costs 1 Had the bitterest personal attack known in New Zealand been published anonymously it might have, to an extent, justified Mr Hindmarsh. But that pamphlet openly bore the name of Black* It is the irresponsible writers who will glory in individual advertisement, who if they come under the ban of law, cannot be mometarily bled, and who will win fame of a sort by the martyr pose. On the other hand journalists of financial standing have to count the cost before they accept the risk of a libel action. In the public interest that risk has been taken in the past and it will be taken in the future. Under such circumstances the editorial "we" gathers an added significance, and it would be a misrepresentation for such a combined utterance to go forth to the world as one individual's opinion.

If there is such a thing as logic in our Parliament, then the desire displayed to make every member of a newspaper staff independently responsible for his work, should have been preceded by the adoption of the Elective Executive proposal, so that each Minister could reject the restrict ion implied in the words " We, the Government have decided" and to substitute therefore "I, Francis Marion Bates Fisher have determined," or "Thus saith Francis Henry Dillion Bell " as the case might be.

Some Right Honourable gentlemen complain that newspapers opposed to them do not always give a fair and accurate report of what they say. We are very sorry. Garbled reports are alien to highest traditions of journalism. A speaker should be held strictly responsible for just what he did say. Cannot this zeal for reform on the part of our legislators be directed to a practical purpose ? Are not thousands of pounds spent on official reports of speeches made in Parliament ? Can any M.P. say that Hansard contains the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of the sayings of the people's representatives ? If so, can they explain why there is no reference in Hansard, in the report of the Hon. Roderick McKenzie's speech on the Want of Confidence amendment that the appoint ment of Mr Myers to the Mackenzie Ministry was solely due to his wealth. Were the newspapers wrong, and Hansard right ? And if the official reports can be altered, how much more may have been omitted ? The people have to pay for the publication of Hansard, and even if members should disgrace themselves and those who sent them to Wellington, Hansard should contain a true and faithful

report