The Southland Times THURSDAY, MAY 19, 1938. Mr Nash’s Allegations Against The Press

Southland Times, Issue 23512, 19 May 1938, Page 4

The Southland Times THURSDAY, MAY 19, 1938. Mr Nash’s Allegations Against The Press

A fuller report now to hand makes it possible to deal with other of the specific charges made by the Minister of Finance in his tirade against the New Zealand Press at Lower Hutt. One of his charges has already been answered by the Press Association, and another has been flung back in his teeth by the literary staff of the Wellington newspaper, The Dominion. These journalists resent the allegation that they “are instructed to write letters to the editor condemning the Government.” They have given it a flat denial and have,, called upon Mr Nash to withdraw it, which is the very least he can do. According to a report in The Dominion, the Minister in his speech quoted against the Press what he was bold enough to call the “evidence” of the Minister of Railways, Mr Sullivan, “one of the cleanest and most straightforward men that has ever been in the political life of this Dominion.” (Radio listeners will not need to be told that it is becoming impossible for members of the Government to speak of their coHeagues, or—in some cases—even of themselves, without adding a few superlatives of this kind.) This was Mr Sullivan’s “evidence” on the subject of anonymous correspondence:

Mr Nash stated that Mr Sullivan had told him that on a newspaper on which he was once employed as a reporter it was the practice of the editor, most mornings, to go to the desks of the more senior members of the staff and instruct them to write letters to the editor on subjects named by him, for publication in that evening’s issue of the paper. Those letters would convey the impression when published that they had been written by members of the general public. What Mr Nash did not say is that it is at least 12 years, and probably 15, since Mr Sullivan worked on a neyyspaper, and that the last not the only paper —on worked is now out of existence. Today Mr Sullivan’s allegation can be neither confirmed nor disproved, but even if it is accepted Mr Nash is. basing his charge on extremely dubious grounds. The Minister of Finance sets himself up as a judge of integrity and truth, but he is prepared to accept a single statement about what happened on a single newspaper—now defunct—more than 12 years ago as evidence on which to call the whole New Zealand Press “unfair, biased, partisan 1 and sometimes vicious.” More than that, without disclosing all the facts he is prepared to put this mock evidence before the public as though it were sound and convincing. No instructions for the writing of anonymous letters are given on any reputable newspaper that we know of; in fact many papers, like The Southland Times, deliberately bar members of the staff from writing letters to the editor. Every letter that is printed in this paper is—as far as research and inquiry can possibly ensure—a genuine letter from a genuine correspondent. Up to 25 per cent, of letters sent in have to be rejected, others have to be cut; but they are rejected or cut impartially and for good reasons. Many correspondents, for instance, have only a remote understanding of the law of libel. A rough search of our files shows that during the last month more letters have been printed in our columns in favour of the Government and its policies than have been printed against it. This, of course, is not good enough. Nothing less than 100 per cent, adulation will suit these politicians with a “mission.” Anonymous letters are only fair when they praise the Government; if they do anything less than praise it, they are vicious—“written in the office.”

Another charge made by Mr Sullivan and duly repeated by Mr Nash arose out of Mr Sullivan’s visit to the West Coast of the South Island early in 1937. He was accompanied by two reporters representing Canterbury newspapers, and we have the Minister’s own word for it that their “reports on the incidents of the tour were modest accounts of the enthusiastic receptions accorded me.” At Greymouth the tragedy broke. One of the reporters came to Mr Sullivan, appearing “sincerely distressed”, and handed him a telegram, signed with the name of his paper, which read “Stop the Sullivan glorification serial.” This was produced by Mr Nash as evidence of “improper interference” with the reporter and may have struck some listeners —although we doubt it —as being part of a deep-laid plan against the Government. Actually there are very few reporters who have not at some time in their careers, when on tour with Ministers of this or some other Government, received vigorously-worded telegrams from the perspiring sub-editors who have to handle their copy—which is apt occasionally to resemble a serial. Such telegrams are almost invariably signed with the name of the newspaper, though they may be sent by the subeditor, the chief reporter, or the editor. As for the word “glorification”, the reporter’s conduct in immediately hand-,

ing over a telegram from his office for Mr Sullivan’s inspection suggests that there was probably good reason for it. A reporter’s job is to report things that happen and not to write anybody “up” or to write him “down.” Each \ member of the literary staff of The Southland Times has the following printed instruction, which is typical of the instruction "given by most newspapers, if not by all:

The first duty of every journalist is accuracy. Make sure of your facts and set them down in simple language, uncoloured by your personal opinion or what you think the view of The Southland Times may be. Obtain both sides to a question and write your story without favour to either. . . . . The

paper’s policy on any question is expressed only through its editorial columns. On no account must it be permitted to creep into the news. It is better to eliminate a statement of which you are not sure than to risk the paper’s reputation for accuracy.

Trivial and prejudiced as Mr Nash’s charges were, we have dealt with them at some length because they form part of what is clearly becoming a campaign of misrepresentation against the Press. Having realized that the measures of restriction it contemplated last year were too hazardous for its own safety, the Government appears to be deliberately setting out to undermine the people’s confidence ih their newspapers. The cry against the Press is being raised by members of the Labour Party from its leader downwards; even local trades union secretaries have joined in. The conclusion is unavoidable that the people are being prepared for an assault on what is one of the fundamental conditions of democratic freedom —an unshackled Press.