MANY MINISTERS DID NOT VOTE ON BRITISH PRESS MOTION

Wanganui Chronicle, 1 November 1946, Page 5

MANY MINISTERS DID NOT VOTE ON BRITISH PRESS MOTION

DIFFERENCES OF OPINION IN THE CABINET? Recd. 6 p.m. London, Oct. 31. The division lists in the House of Commons on Tuesday show that the Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, and eleven other Ministers did not participate in the division on the motion for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the control of the press. The “Daily Mail,” drawing attention to this, suggests it might indicate a split in the Cabinet. The paper says Mr. Morrison has been very intent on having the inquiry, and even if Cabinet is not split on the question, there is a strong doubt among a number of Ministers about the wisdom of the idea.

The motion, which was moved by Mr. Haynyn Davies (Labour) was carried by 270 votes to 157. Il read: "Having regard to increasing public concern at the growtli of monopolistic tendencies in control of the press, and with the object ot furthering a free expression of opinion througn the press with greatest possible accuracy in the presentation of news, this House considers a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into the financial control and management and ownership of the press.” MANY PAPERS VANISH. Mr. Davies said that in the past 25 years, 47 per cent, of morning papers had vanished and a quarter ot the evening papers. Was there anyone concerned with the freedom of the Press who could regard that and be happy about it? It it was so easy to start a newspaper, why all those deaths and not one birth? Freedom of the Press had been overwhelmed not by bad, unscrupulous journalists, but by the power of nigh finance. Mr. Davies continued: "I claim that journalists cannot do their job in representing news and views fearlessly and at the the mercy ot high finance." He said he hoped the debate would be non-political. The Royal Commission should inquire firstly into the ownership, control, and financing of national and provincial newspapers, news agencies, and periodicals; secondly, to what extent the growth of powerful chains of newspapers was creating a monopoly; thirdly, the ability of independent national local newspapers and periodicals to withstand increased competition from syndicate companies; fourthly, the influence of financial and advertising interests on the presentation and suppression of news; fifthly, the distortion or suppression of essential facts in home and foreign news. RIGHT OF EXPRESSION. The Labour member, Mr. Dingle Foot, supporting Mr. Davies, said the newspapers’ theory seemed to be that the Press lords might attack Ministers but Ministers must never attack the Press. The plea for a commission was an effort to protect the right of free expression. Mr. Foot said he failed to understand Sir Hartley Shawcross’ apology to Lord Kemsley for describing ths Kemsley newspapers as “gutter Press,” because “Lord Kemsley’s newspapers do distort news and suppress evidence.” They were used as vehicles for expressing Lord Kemsley’s political opinions. The Conservative, Sir Maxwell Fyfe, said he had not heard a word in previous speeches about the strength of imputations that there was growth of monopolistic tendencies in control of the Press, or that free expression of opinion through the Press was limited, or that the accuracy of the presentation of news was open to challenge, and it was these imputations the House would have to consider before a prlma facie case could be made. Sir Maxwell Fyfe said that papers supporting the Government had a circulation of 7,470,000 and those critical of the Government 7,665,000. "As far as the national dailies are concerned, there is broadly equality at present"lt is interesting that whereas Right Wing papers are most ready and willing to open their columns to Left Wing contributors, I’ve never seen in the ‘Daily Herald', the 'News Chronicle,’ or the ‘Daily Worker’ any Right Wing figures being allowed to express their views.” •

JOURNALISTS NOT SUBSERVIENT. Sir Maxwell Fyfe added that the very growth of the circulations made it difficult tor any newspaper to doctor news. One could more easily distort news before the days of large circulations and before the 8.8. C. He could not accept the remark that journalists were subservient. He believed that if any proprietor suggested that news should be doctored, the run of journalists would not be a party to it. He agreed that, unlike some of their Continental colleagues, British journalists could not be bribed directly. What they put in or left out was dictated entirely by news value. No prlma facie case had been made out for an Inquiry or anything within miles of it. It should never be enough in Britain to get an inquiry merely because certain people were thin skinned with regard to hostile comments. In large areas of the world freedom of the Press was unknown. "The British Press shines forth as an opposition which is the lifeblood of democracy,” he added. Mr. Beverley Baxter said the fad that the establishment of a Royal Commission to investigate the activities of the Press would be a prlma facie vote of censure on the Press and a definite warning that something was going to be done that the Press would not like. AGAINST CONTROLLERS. Mr. Tim Driberg (Labour) said the demand for the commission was not an attack against the Press as such, but against the controllers of great chains of newspapers. He asserted that in newspaper offices in which he had been the influence of advertisers was exerted the whole time. Mr. H. W. Harris (Con.) wanted to know it' the Government in'/nded to act on the commission's findings. Ho feared that legislation regulating the Press might result "In the first step to the road on which the Press found itself in totalitarian countries." Mr. Max Aitken (Con.) said the newspapers previously gave power to the man at the top of their organisations, but that power could be dissipated overnight if the people did not. buy the newspapers. Newspapers today sold on their merits and there were few circulation incitements as there were before the war. Mr. Herbert Morrison (Lab.) said: “I have been fighting the newspapers all my life and they have been fighting me." He declared that newspaper proprietors were sensitive. You could not look at them twice without them accusing you of wanting to interfere with the freedom of the Press. "They are the most thin-skinned section of people I have ever knocked about

with,” he said, “while they themselves say most dreadful things about us.” Mr. Morrison added: “The Press as a whole does function as a kind of unofficial party in the working of the British constitution. I would defend to the last its right to be a consistent critic of he Government, but I don't like this acquiring of newspapers and their conversion into great chains of newspapers. The practice of provincial newspapers having their policy directed or imposed upon them from London is a bad thing and ought to be inquired into. I think a case for a Royal Commission is made out, but that doesn’t commit the Government to any action thereafter.” Mr. Davies’ motion was carried by 270 votes to 157.