The Southland Times TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1944. Clear Thinking at Winton

Southland Times, Issue 25502, 24 October 1944, Page 4

The Southland Times TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1944. Clear Thinking at Winton

THE Prime Minister told a meeting of electors at Winton on Friday night that he was not begging for votes. “What he was asking people to do was to think. This was very necessary because from the North Cape to the Bluff there was a Press hostile to the Labour Government, pouring out night and day stupid accusations and stories without foundation about the Government.” When an invitation to clear thinking was coupled with a gross exaggeration of this nature, it became a little difficult to believe that Mr Fraser was himself revealing a capacity for thoughtfulness. There is no newspaper at the Bluff; but The Southland Times occupies a southerly position in Esk street, and must therefore be included in the sweeping condemnation. On the morning th'at the Prime Minister’s criticism was printed, reports of his speeches, movements and statements for the previous day filled two and a-half columns. He had every reason to be satisfied with the treatment he received in Invercargill. This treatment was not unique; it was the result of a policy aimed at a fair news coverage, -and freely adopted by every newspaper in the country. Mr Fraser could not have meant, therefore, that the Press reveals its hostility in a deliberate exclusion of Government statements. All authorities on public opinion agree that the news columns are the most influential section of a newspaper, and in those columns the percentage of space given to ministerial and official matter is very high. The “stupid accusations and stories without foundation” cannot be taken to refer exclusively to leading articles. It is true that the Press as a whole does not support the Labour Party; but it is equally true that most newspapers, especially in wartime, spread their editorial comment over a.wide variety of subjects. They do not attack the Government continuously and indiscriminately. When they criticize, they do not speak merely for the proprietors: they speak also for nearly half the population. In Southland, where three out of four electorates are held by the National Party, the percentage is higher. The Government has a monopoly of the radio services, and guards it jealously. Next year the Labour Party will have its own daily newspaper, apparently for distribution in the four main, centres. It has held office for nine years, and in that time has won three general elections. Yet the Prime Minister asks the people to believe that a party which gained office without newspaper support, and which has held it ever since under the same conditions, is now endangered by Press hostility. There is something wrong with this kind of thinking. Democratic Opinion

The truth is that the newspapers did help to send the Labour Party into office, and the function responsible for that result is now assisting the process of political decline. That function is simply the free dissemination of news. During the depression, when the previous Government was struggling with majoi' economic problems, the facts were faithfully recorded. The people knew that unemployment was increasing. They knew what steps were being taken to improve the situation. They read about relief works, “slave camps,” riots in Auckland and Wellington, and all the events of those unhappy times. The evidence presented in their newspapers could be compared with local and personal experiences. Moreover, public men were expressing strong opinions. At meetings up and down the country the Government was trenchantly criticized, and the criticisms were reported. Angry letters were written and published.* From a thousand different sources, the facts and opinions were drawn regularly into print. Exactly the same process is taking place today. There is no change in the methods used by newspapers; they are concerned, as always, with their proper functions —the collection and printing of news. But this time the criticisms .reported at meetings and elsewhere are directed against the Labour Government. There are new grievances, new anxieties and new causes of dissatisfaction. They are not manufactured in newspaper offices, but are drawn from the same sources which influenced public opinion when Labour was voted into power. This is a democratic process. It would continue without interruption if every newspaper in the Dominion printed leading articles which were completely neutral, or if they printed no leading articles at all. Mr Fraser, naturally enough, does not like the evidence of declining popularity. But he is placing the blame in the wrong quarter. If he is convinced that the Press is unfair, he is basing his attitude on an imperfect knowledge of the conditions under which a newspaper is produced; and clear thinkers do not reach conclusions which rest on faulty information. If he understands the functions of journalism, and persists in his unfavourable judgment, he is questioning a fundamental principle of democracy. There are two other possible explanations: he believes that the people can be persuaded to accept a scapegoat, or he attacks the Press as a purely mechanical gesture,, making it part of his electioneering tactics. Any one of these alternatives would imply a sorry example of straight thinking in a Prime Minister who claims that he is interested only in the “intelligent votes.”