The Timaru Herald SATURDAY, AUGUST 24, 1929. CRITICS OF THE PRESS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18352, 24 August 1929, Page 8

The Timaru Herald SATURDAY, AUGUST 24, 1929. CRITICS OF THE PRESS.

During the week now closing, quite a fierce array of critics of the Press have indulged themselves in more or less reckless denunciation of New Zealand journalism. This favourite topic of certain types of public men was introduced by the Member for Westland who asked the Prime Minister to establish a State newspaper, which would, he believed, ensure fairer reports of members’ speeches. Of course Sir Joseph Ward declined to burden the State with such a foolish undertaking. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister might have reminded the Member for Westland that the State already issues a full report of Members’ speeches in the form of “Hansard.” But do the people read this weighty tome ? There • are only 13S subscribers to “Hansard,” and a fair balance of each issue, although freely circulated without charge, can be found unopened in big bundles in every hole and corner in the Dominion. But will Members of Parliament say that “Hansard” publishes a exact report of their speeches! Not at all. Members freely exercise the privilege of making corrections in Hansard proofs, and the finished article is, to put it mildly, often, very often, not quite the speech delivered by the Member! It is ironic to say so, but iu the one publication which provides space for Members’ speeches reported in full, the polishing up process is indulged in very freely by Members. But the ingratitude of the average public speaker is amazing. They owe much to the Press, and since there is talk of retaliation, it might be found by the critics that they are toying with a two-edged sword. Indeed, if the Press of New Zealand were to do the retaliation and give their readers verbatim reports of the utterances of some of the politicians who are talking so loudly, the public would be treated to some highly entertaining reading. Speaking in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, the Labour Member for Waimarino asked: “What right has any editor to decide what portion of a member’s speech should be published and what portion should not.” The obvious answer to such a foolish question is that the exigencies of space, and what is more important, consideration for readers of newspapers, forces the newspaper to publish condensed reports. In any case, it may be pertinent to ask: By what right Members of Parliament demand the publication of their speeches at all? But the Member for Mid-Canterbury made an effective rejoinder to the protests of Labour by jocularly drawing attention to the fact that the official organ of the Labour Party had not reported Ms speech! “It is a grave injustice to the workers of New Zealand,” Mr Jones added much to the amusement of the House, “that I should not have been reported in the paper they read.” The Member for Timaru also participated in the debate. He claimed that “the standard of the New Zealand Press was beihg in certain quarters, lamentably lowered from time to time, Certain newspapers,” Mr Carr added darkly, “would do well to take heed to their ways,” Another Labour Member, who confessed that he did not care if he never got a line in the newspapers, urged the Government to retaliate. “It would,” added Mr Langstone, “teach the Press a necessary and useful lesson.” Complete relief can be given by Labour itself. If, as the Party claims, it can reckon on the support of the great mass of city electors, who are simply starving for fuller reports of Parliamentary debates, Mr Holland and his colleagues should not wait for the State to act. The Party should rush this fine field of enterprise and launch their own newspapers, publish the reports of Parliament in full, and invite the workers of the cities to buy their productions. If as Labour suggests the public are so greedy for full reports of the utterances of Parliamentarians (which of course they are not!) the newspaper business conducted on the lines suggested by the Member for Westland should yield lucrative results. The experiment has already been tried out in Greymouth, and the Member for Westland, who has been well schooled in the conduct of a daily Labour paper, could be appointed controller of the Labour Press! RIGHTS OF THE CRITICS. There is nothing new in the recent outbursts. The Press has always been regarded as a handy target for the shafts of the critics. Even iu Timaru, the Press has been subjected to the most reckless and unfair criticism. Only this week, Mr Walton who lead the deputation of exMayors into the holy of holies of our municipal administrators, delivered himself of a curtain lecture on the conduct of the Press. No one who knows anything about New Zealand newspapers would accept Mr Walton as an authority on the ethics and practices of journalism. The Borough Council to which the

remarks were addressed, was not the least interested, but it remains to be said that it is doubtful if Mr Walton could furnish offhand, an accurate idea of the political leanings of the 62 daily newspapers issued in New Zealand, much less give an authoritative opinion on the conduct of the Press of the Dominion. Mr Walton convened a public meeting to discuss a public question that had been decided by a public body. Why then should he complain if other critics, no less interested, should claim the right to criticise the I critics of the Council. Appar- •' ently we committed the unforgivable sin of not suppressing the views of interested citizens who presumed to criticise Mr Walton’s utterances. It is just as well to point out that the columns of this journal are open . to the whole world to discuss public questions, aud we are satis-! fled that no curtain lectures will convince a democratic community j that the Press should report the j public utterances of the critics, and then suppress the views of j other citizens who feel disposed to reply. Attention should be drawn to the new note that has been | struck. During the last municipal j election campaign in Timaru, the Press was accused, without found- j ation, of unduly criticising our < municipal administrators. We j think we effectively silenced that! criticism. But wdiat is the position i to-day? We wonder what would have been said of us four months ago, if we had called the citizens to foregather in a public meeting to challenge the outcome of the j deliberations of the Mayor and Council! We wonder what avalanche of criticism would have been rolled upon us if w r e had attempted to arouse an agitation that might have resulted in upsetting the Council’s financial arrangements by addressing an appeal to the Local Loans Board! We wonder what the critics of the Press would have said if we had suggested that a deputation of ex-Mayors should be organised to protest against the Council’s decisions! We w r ould have been accused of embarking upon a campaign that w'as making the life of public men unbearable! The Press Would have been dg.npunced for indulging in destructive criticism! We do uot suggest, of course, that citizens have no right to voice their protests, nor do w-e think that any group, of ratepayers lias no right to organise deputations to w r ait on the Council; on the contrary, w r e demand that that right should be conceded to every citizen regardless of rank or station; indeed it would be a sorry day for progressive citizenship if the power to suppress rebutting criticism on public questions, Was reposed in the hands of any section of the community, or vested in an individual, regardless of the best of intentions.