The Southland Times SATURDAY, MAY 30, 1942. The Censorship of News

Southland Times, Issue 24757, 30 May 1942, Page 4

The Southland Times SATURDAY, MAY 30, 1942. The Censorship of News

WHEN Vice-Admiral Robert L. Ghormley, United Nations Commander of the South Pacific area, had his. first Press conference in Auckland a few days ago, he was asked a number of questions which did not all have a bearing on naval strategy. Mr Merrill (“Red”) Mueller, foreign correspondent for International News, U.S.A., declared that “censorship regulations were much more strict in New Zealand than in the U.S.A.” He asked “if it would be sufficient if the Admiral himself approved of news cables filed in New Zealand for transmission abroad.” This was obviously a tactical move to outwit the censors, and most newspapermen will feel a certain sympathy for Mr Mueller, who must have found it difficult to understand some of the prohibitions ponderously laid down in Wellington. But public interest should be focussed on his allegation that the censorship is applied more rigorously here than in the United States. Not long ago Mr Brendan Bracken, British Minister of Information, pointed out in an article that the British censorship was milder than that of America. This means that New Zealand, a young country founded by men who believed passionately in freedom, is controlling the publication of news items more severely than eitherBritain or the United States. There can be little doubt, too, that a wider freedom of the printed word exists today in Australia. It is not necessary to look for any sinister explanation of the tightening control in New Zealand. Timidity and lack of imagination are probably the two main causes. The Government, harassed by problems which require more skilled attention than can be given to them by a dwindling group of tired Cabinet Ministers, has never adopted a constructive publicity service. Instead of expanding the scope of Press relations with the State departments vitally concerned in the war effort, it appointed a Director of Publicity whose function has become increasingly negative. It prefers silence to explanation. This attitude is having its inevitable effect on external as well as domestic opinion. During the past five days one statement for Dominion publication has come from the Prime Minister—an appeal for public support of the Liberty Loan. In the same period no fewer than four statements by Mr John Curtin, Prime Minister of Australia, have been cabled to New Zealand newspapers. He has had something to say about racing, the battle of production, the question of air power in the Pacific, and Australia’s determination to play the present “test match” to a finish. In addition, numerous messages have been received explaining the Australian viewpoint on important questions of war policy. And in London an Australian statesman, Dr H. V. Evatt, has spoken for New Zealand as well as for his own country in pressing the strategic claims of the Pacific Dominions. This preponderance of Australian news and views is not unusual: it is a typical week’s publicity. Apart from Cabinet Ministers who announced an increase in the price of wool (which came simultaneously from the 8.8. C.) and some new regulations, the only prominent New Zealander who has had anything to say this week is Mr Nash; and it is significant that he spoke from the stimulating environment of Washington. Censorship in war time cannot be avoided. But it should be limited to news items which have a direct military value for the enemy. In New Zealand it is steadily overflowing into an area of news and opinion which is loosely defined as “harmful to the war effort.” The recent suppression of a small-circulation periodical which advocated unorthodox finance measures was an illustration of the Government’s attitude. In a country where publicity was used and fostered as a positive contribution to war policy the opinions of small minorities could safely be ignored; and the basis of freedom would be strengthened by the practical exercise of tolerance. But New Zealand has adopted the easy way of suppression. It is a great pity that this Dominion’s war effort, an effort in which the people can justifiably find satisfaction, should be hampered by a mistaken faith in the Efficacy of silence. Admittedly, it can prevent rashness and cover indiscretion. But it can also be used to protect inefficiency. And it breeds rumour with a deadly facility. If anything comes of the political negotiations now proceeding in Wellington, it is to be hoped that a new War Cabinet will include someone, preferably with journalistic experience, who can let a little clear air into the stuffy ‘citadels of Wellington.