The New Zealand TABLET THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1916. THE ‘PRESS’ AND ITS TACTICS

New Zealand Tablet, 9 November 1916, Page 33

The New Zealand TABLET THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1916. THE ‘PRESS’ AND ITS TACTICS

fjHjt HE Christchurch Press, finding that it had made a particularly bad break in its ill- .*• matured and ill-advised attempt to interfere with {he movement for the relief of Irish distress, quickly changed its ground, f and last week adopted an entirely new ' tsjpf ' role. It professed to feel itself aggrieved at the suggestion that Catholics might feel themselves called upon to withdraw their support from a paper which deliberately insulted them ; protested against such ‘ intimidation’ j and noisily posed as the champion of the ‘ freedom of the press.’ In pursuance of these tactics it opened its columns to a flood of vituperative and abusive correspondence, in which Catholics in general, and the Irish people in particular, were slandered and calumniated in wholesale fashion. The letters were accompanied by leaderettes and. footnotes which would have disgraced an intelligent office-boy. It was, we do not hesitate to say, the most undignified, hysterical, and puerile exhibition that has marked the history of journalism in this country. The controversy has now fizzled out, and to deal with it in

detail would be like-flogging the proverbial dead horse. It is unnecessary to say that there was, in Bishop Brodie’s action, no question of ‘ intimidation ’ or of any violation of the ‘ freedom of the press.’ No one .objected to the Press airing its anti-Home Rule views or to legitimate criticism of the objects of the Dublin distress meeting. But when the paper went on to suggest that the Bishop of Christchurch, and, inferentially, the Bishops and Archbishops of Australasia, were so stupid as to be reckless, or of such questionable loyalty as to be indifferent, in regard to the manner in which the funds raised were to be applied, it passed the bounds of fair and reasonable criticism, and invited, and fully merited, the castigation which it has received. There was, we repeat, no question of intimidation. The Press is perfectly free—within the limits of our very imperfect law of libel—to think and say what it pleases about Catholics ; and Catholics—like every other section of the community—are perfectly free to support whatever paper they choose. And that, as the American colloquialism has it, is all there is to it. Christchurch is very liberally supplied with papers, and the individual paper is more dependent upon the public than the public is upon the paper. It is well for the Christchurch papers to realise the fact, for therein lies the best security which the public can have for fair and reasonable and courteous criticism of public men and public affairs. As regards the ‘ freedom of the press : we do not believe, as so many of the Press followers -seem to do, that the great principle of the ‘ freedom of the press ’ is sufficient justification for the publication of vile abuse of any body of people—especially of Catholics. In the right understanding of the word ‘ freedom ’ we shall ever defend the proper freedom of the press as of the subject. But we are not in favor of free insult, free slander-mongering, and free -making. Freedom is one thing. License is another. The honest, man seeks the one ; the other kind the other. And the Press can place itself in whichever category it pleases.