The Star. SATURDAY, APRIL 26, 1913. SIGNED ARTICLES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10753, 26 April 1913, Page 6

The Star. SATURDAY, APRIL 26, 1913. SIGNED ARTICLES.

> With the issue of the writs for the Commonwealth elections the Australian, newspapers are required to refrain from publishing political comments unless

iba articles are signed with the name i of the writer. This particular law, course, was the inspiration of the I little joke of the "'Argus" at the •xpenso of tho Federal AttorncyV General, mentioned in a cable message i: published yesterday. If Mr Hughes or any other Minister wants to express his political opinions in print during

the next month' he will have to sign

liis article. That, is not likely to be any hardship from the politician's . point of view, for the politician who is ifitrxions to avoid advertising himself yet to be born. But the law ' operates, to say tho least, peculiarly .in regard to the newspapers. Its object was professedly to prevent niis- ' representation and anonymous abuse at

. elootion time. Tho Labour politicians argued that a political writer would be t less prone to commit himself to flagrant misstatements of fact in the heat '"'Of an election campaign if he Mere ' J prevented from sheltering himself behind his newspaper, and if he had to com© out in the open and sign his name to every line he wrote. Probably this is true in regard to many of the

people who contribute to the correspondence columns of the newspapers at election time. " Pro Bono Pub- - lico," "Disgusted Elector" and "Hoc Genus Omno" are undoubtedly inclined to abuse the privilege of anonymous letter writing, and it is by

no means easy for the most con-

„ Kcientious editor to discriminate between the correspondent who is legitimately entitled to protection and the who is merely seeking by " innuendo to damage the political pros- ] pects of a candidate. ■ - But a Labour Government should ! have been the last to withdraw from

the masses the protection of anonymity at election time. The average elector 2 naturally shrinks from advertising him- « self. He may have perfectly proper ' questions to ask and perfectly proper •" - comments to offer on the views of some r candidate, and he may be rendering a f real service to the community by sending a letter to the Press. There may be good reasons why he should remain anonymous, for his name may carry no .■weight and his employer may object to him engaging openly in political controversy. Anonymity it not a crime

in such circumstances and the withdrawal of the privilege will hit the '- ■masses far harder than it will hit the " classes." Labour happens to be in

' office in the Commonwealth and Labour

-is presumably the popular creed. But tie day will oome when Labour will find this law, if it remains in opera- •" ], tiqn, a- hindrance rather than a help, p ■ Probably the rights of the people .>.' generally were not fully considered in \ ihe restrictive legislation, % for the Labour members had their eye particularly on the great " capitalistic " newspapers of Sydney and Melbourne. But, even in Sydney and Melbourne the newspapers have hitherto placed their columns freely at the disposal of :■ anonymous correspondents who have had legitimate grievances to ventilate, » and from this point of view the law :l probably will do as much harm as . good. As for the newspapers themselves, ▼iewed as political organs, the law is not likely to cause them any serious inconvenience or to diminish the ■ vehemence of their comments on political persons and questions. Responsible journalists of the old school •• are not fond of seeing their names in print, but they will not hesitate to express themselves freely eveii if they have to sign their articles. Most •journalists find, as a matter of experience, that the practice of anonymity has a distinctly restraining influence, r; The ''policy of the paper" has to be kept in mind, and the journalist often = hesitates to commit his journal to an expression of opinion or a harsh comment for which he is perfectly , willing to take the whole responsibility. The editorial "we" stands for the * collective wisdom of a journal. It . introduces a comment written with a full recognition of the journal's responsibility in reflecting or guiding public opinion. It shows the journalists to be merged in their journal, discharging their duty conscientiously with a full appreciation of the public nature

of the institution to which they are attached. The newer school of into which the Australian Government is consciously or unconsciously driving Australian newspapers, elevates the particular above the general, the commercial above the publio interest, the individual above

ihe group. The vogue of the signed article is to be deplored, since it V necessarily shifts the influence from the journal to the journalist. Comparatively few men could write day after day over their own names withoa' Irritating the public, and the signed article inevitably shortens the efficient ' life of the journalist. For the steady, consistent, sober influence of the newspaper, therefore, is substituted the precarious and transient popularity of the individual. On no score, therefore, is the Australian law to be commended, and it is to be hoped that the aaner conditions will be restored before Australian journalism surrenders irretrievably to the cult of the signed article.