CENSORSHIP OF NEWS

Southland Times, Issue 24444, 26 May 1941, Page 6

CENSORSHIP OF NEWS

ADVERSE CRITICISM BY JOURNALISTS

Adverse criticism of the censorship in New Zealand, based on the belief of many journalists that State suppression of news exceeds that required for war purposes, was expressed at the annual meeting of the Wellington Journalists’ Union. The speakers were all experienced newspapermen, and some were executive members of the union, reports The Journalist, the official organ of the New Zealand Journalists’ Association. It was made clear at the meeting that the criticism of the censorship was made not for any political reason but in the genuine belief that it transcended the bounds of the reasonable rules to which journalists _ and publishers, in the interests of national safety, willingly submit in time of war. Without dissent the meeting passed the following resolution:— “That this annual meeting of the Wellington Journalists’ Union affirms that a press free and unfettered by the Government in the dissemination of all news excepting that which reveals military or naval secrets is of vital importance to the public, at least equally in war time as in peace time, and deplores certain recent official censorship de- j cisions in New Zealand. The meeting recommends the council of the New Zealand Journalists" Association to forward a similar resolution to the Government, and recommends that copies of the resolution be sent to other bodies likely to be interested, seeking support.” POLITICAL CENSORSHIP Tire point was made that censorship in New Zealand had gone beyond what the general public believed censorship should be, though that transgression was, of course, well known to journalists, who in Wellington were alarmed at the trend. It was contended by one speaker that a change could be made only if the public were acquainted with the position. He thought it useless to appeal to the Government. The two outstanding examples of what was termed unnecessary political censorship, as distinct from necessary naval or military censorship, were the Ostler case and the affair of the strike at the Woburn railway workshops. Both were mentioned at the meeting, and it was stated that there were many other instances —small things in themselves, but often repeated. Another disquieting aspect of the operation of the censorship in the Dominion referred to by speakers was the treatment by the office of the Director of Publicity of cabled news, both inwards and outwards. New Zealand correspondents of overseas papers, it was stated, submitted their copy for transmission overseas to the Director of Publicity, and after that they knew nothing about it. They knew neither whether it was sent, or if it did go, when and in what form. One instance quoted was that of a correspondent for an American newspaper who was astounded to read in it, when it reached New Zealand, one of his messages so much altered internally as to change the meaning of the original text. PRINCIPAL COMPLAINT Just as extraordinary, it was contended, was the censorship of news from overseas, which had to pass the English censors if it came from that country. Yet recently the New Zealand censorship had deleted from an English message a paragraph of' vital importance to New Zealand. Canadian, Australian and English newspapers contained news that would horrify the Director of Publicity in New Zealand. For instance, the idea of sharp criticism in a newspaper of military personnel, policy or control would shock the director and also the Government.

But the principal complaint of the n.eeting was not with censorship of questions directly affecting the war, but with what was considered unjustifiable interference with news of domestic and political interest. “I remember,” said one speaker, “an assurance by Mr Nash some time ago that there would always be a free Press in New Zealand. I think he might be reminded of that.”