The Wanganui Chronicle. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1937. THE MINISTER FOR LABOUR AND THE PRESS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 256, 28 October 1937, Page 6

The Wanganui Chronicle. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1937. THE MINISTER FOR LABOUR AND THE PRESS

WEEING the obviously inspired question of the Reverend Clyde Carr. HEP., the Minister for Labour, Mr. Armstrong, voiced a complaint that a statement which he released during last week was not published in the 140 daily newspapers of the Dominion. Mr. Armstrong might have made a show of attempting to be fair because he knew, or could have known, that such statement never reached the Wanganui Chronicle. The first intimation which the Chronicle received of the statement was its appearance in the Wellington dailies. The Chronicle was unaware that a copy of such statement had ever been sent to its editorial department until enquiry was made by the Wanganui postal authorities as to whether such communication had been received. The postal authorities were then told that no such communication had been received liy either the editor or the manager of the Chronicle. Had the communication been received it would have been considered on its merits as a piece of news. Unfortunately the Minister for Labour, besides being a member of the Cabinet, desires to arrogate to himself the functions exercised by the editorial departments of the newspapers. It does not appear that he lias the qualifications for such additional responsibilities, the first of which is a desire for accuracy. The StarSun, of Christchurch, points out that there are not 140 daily newspapers but 56, and asserts that the Minister’s statement was not dispatched from Wellington on the 15th instant but on the 16111 instant. The Christchurch Star-Sun also points out that one Wellington newspaper was given an advantage of 36 hours over all the morning papers of the Dominion, and fortyeight hours’ advantage at least over all other evening newspapers. The Minister’s assertion that arrangements were made for publication by a. number of them simultaneously,” is apparently challenged. It would be as well for the Reverend Clyde Carr to be inspired to ask a supplementary question of the Minister for Labour, enquiring whether the Minister’s statement was an accurate presentation of the facts as the departmental officers found them, whether the enquiries of the postal officials had been made known to the Minister, and if so, how many papers were unaware that any such communication had been addressed to them until the enquiry was made by the postmasters?