The Wanganui Chronicle FRIDAY, APRIL 21, 1939. A PROBLEM IN PUBLICITY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 83, Issue 93, 21 April 1939, Page 6

The Wanganui Chronicle FRIDAY, APRIL 21, 1939. A PROBLEM IN PUBLICITY

’J’HE Labour Party has been presented with a problem in pub- ® lieity. It believes in democracy; it believes in free discus- q sion ;it demands that its side of an argument be published, and " fifty per cent, is not too much to be accorded its own side, although it may be undesirable to accord a similar percentage of 1 publicity to those with whom it is in disagreement. In recent t years some remarkable protests have, been made, particularly f t one by the Prime Minister himself, who complained that he had c not had enough publicity when he had received eight columns I on the occasion of his visit to Auckland prior to his departure ® for the Coronation. Less modest people than Mr. Savage would j have been more than content with the same amount of publicity. j Now the Labour movement proposes to raise £lOO,OOO within six months for a Labour daily, which is purely the Labour ® Party’s own business, and there is nothing to be said against Ihe a proposal. But the Labour Party.is.putting itself into a very singular position. It denounced a. tied Press, and yet seeks to t establish one of its own. Presumably, in this, as in other mat- < ters, there is not room for consistency. The Labour movement is not a free, movement and, conse- * quently, it will not have a free Press when it establishes its own t newspaper. If. will have a political-machine controlled news- ‘ paper, and it will not —if present indications are. anything to go c by—foster free discussion. I The Standard has been proclaiming that the daily news- J papers do not play fair by the Labour Party. Yet, now it has the \ opportunity of playing fair, not with its political opponents, e but with loyal supporters of the Labour movement itself, how 1 does it act? In its issue of April 13 it features the report of ( Mr. James Roberts’ attack on the Press, and it denies that there ■ is a split in the Labour ranks. What condition of inter-party ’ relationship amount to a split is perhaps a matter for closer < definition, but it would be. difficult to deny that there is a. diverg- ’ cnee of view held by members of the Labour Party on the subject of finance. Mr. J. A. Lee wrote a lengthy circular, which he claims he did not publish. Instead of accepting Mr. Lee’s assertion that “he was not responsible in any way for its public circulation,” the Standard of April 20 prints a three-column ‘ wide heading in red ink: “Conference Condemns Action of Mr. ; J. A. Lee in Issuing Circular.” Hence another little inconsist- ' ency is provided in the Standard publicising a conference condemnation of Mr. Lee for an action which he says he did not do. ’ In the report which follows, the following statement appears: ( "The issue was debated at length, and Mr. Lee and Mr. Nash were both heard by conference, whilst the Prime Minister and the Hon. Peter Fraser also spoke strongly. Other speakers were. , Dr. 1). (I. Macmillan, M.P.. the Rev. A. H. Nordmeyer, M.P., and i Mr. C. Morgan Williams. M.P. At the end of the debate the motion was carried by a large majority.” That is all that the, , public and the members of the Labour Party are entitled to know about the matter. On page 11. of the same issue, five, and a-half columns are devoted to the exposition by Mr. Nash of Labour’s | financial policy. Mr. Lee gets no publicity at all. and Mr. Lee’s case is that Mr. Nash has departed from Labour orthodox policy as enunciated and approved by the Labour Conference. What would have been said by the Labour Conference had the daily Press treated with such disparity a member of the National Party and a member of the Labour Party in debate. The problem of providing adequate space to each and every speaker is admittedly one of difficulty, but Mr. Lee has more grounds for complaining at the lack of publicity given to his—what he claims to be—orthodox and approved Labour views, from the Standard than he has of complaining of the treatment accorded him by the hated Capitalist. Press.