A DANGEROUS PROPOSAL.

Southland Times, Issue 18967, 14 June 1923, Page 4

A DANGEROUS PROPOSAL.

Sir Francis Bell was both firm and sympathetic in his reception of the delegation of clergymen who sought to induce him to apply some form of censorship on newspaper reports of certain legal proceedings. Fortunately the Minister was emphatic in his opinion that the application of a censorship to press reports was dangerous and probably the members of the delegation on consideration of the matter will realise the soundness of the views he expressed. In the Old Country an effort is being made to prevent the publication of sensational accounts of divorce proceedings, and with the aim of the promoters of the legislation we are in entire accord, but it is doubtful if a law on the subject can be at once sufficiently explicit and sufficiently elastic to be effective without depriving society of one of its greatest aids in the prevention of injustice and for the righting of wrongs. Experience has shown that the application of a censorship of the press in any form is exceedingly dangerous. Where proceedings in the courts, or in public bodies, are safeguarded from publication by artificial means there invariably arises a suspicion in the public mind that the interests of society are not being adequately served. One of the strongest buttresses of the system of justice in the British Empire is the knowledge that the Press is able to present the facts to the public and by the light of publicity to keep the nation informed of the acts of public officers. Where there is secrecy the public becomes suspicious, and when confidence is lost, with or without justification, the door is opened to reprisals of a harmful nature. Newspapers are not mere purveyors of news. Their news columns are not merely an aid to good government by applying publicity to the offenders against the laws, they are society’s safeguard against the deteridration of public morality. People look to newspapers to publish the opinions of men in public positions and to ventilate grievances, because in a democracy an informed public is neceesary. Many a charlatan has been exposed not by newspaper attacks, but by the publication of his most impressive utterances, and many a good cause has been carried to victory by means of the news columns alone. Doubtless there exist cases where sensationalism in connection with trials has not been in the best interests of the community, but there is a great gulf between the sensationalism about which complaint is made and the presentation of the relevant facts in order that justice in the fullest sense may be done to the parties interested. This country has had too much censorship in the past, and it should not treat lightly any further efforts, however well-meant, to curtail the liberties of the Press. Sir Francis Bell advised the delegation to take their case to the newspapers, and that course should be adopted. Journalism in this country has high traditions, and sensationalism has not yet made the headway that has become painfully apparent in America, in Britain, and in Australia. New Zealand newspapers in the main do not make a practice of publishing sordid details for the purpose of feeding an unhealthy appetite, and in general it may be said fairly that there is less ground for complaint than there apparently is in the Old Country about the manner in which the proceedings of the Divorce Courts are reported. It may be considered by the House of Commons that some restraining legislation is required, but that opinion would not justify the application of a similar law in the Dominion. Public interest demands that newspapers should be as free of fetters as possible. The truth is preferable and is safer than the cloak of legalised secrecy.