GOVERNMENT, PRESS AND PEOPLE Sta,—The men who could speak with
most authority on the newspaper aspect of Press censorship during 1914-18 were the chief sub-editors in charge of the war rooms of our great daily newspapers and news agencies. But these men were C3's, or over military age, so that after twenty-one years few survive. As one of the survivors I am certain that they, like all other newspaper men, would welcome the Government assurance that the principle controlling the relationship between war-time Ministry of Information and Press is to be that of co-operation, and that they, if alive and in their old jobs, would see to it that this co-operation is given in brimming measure. But at the same time I venture the view that they would probably disagree with you, as I do, in your support of the inclusion of Press censorship among the responsibilities of the Ministry (The Spectator, August 4th), and would con- sider this inclusion a regrettable and unnecessary introduction of an element of friction which should be avoided.
In 1914-18 no official body was more derided and com- manded less respect in the newspaper world than the Press censorship. Nobody for a moment denied the necessity of censorship or protested against the limitations which it must impose. But its stupidities (real or seeming) and its absurdi- ties (real or seeming) were jaightly occurrences, and formed a barrier to cordial relations which was never surmounted.
Newspaper " A " would have suppressed what for news- paper " B " had been passed ; French reports sanctioned by French General Headquarters, and published in the French Press, would be censored ; facts taken from the German newspapers, and having nothing to do with British morale, but illuminating the morale of the enemy, would be excised ; on occasions (although not many) positional information, whose importance should have been noted by the military censors, passed both them and the laymen sub-editors with disastrous results. On other occasions (quite numerous) the lay sub- editors would excise matter which had actually passed the experts, but, nevertheless, seemed dangerous ; and so on through a list which, if completely recalled, would fill a book. In the end the prejudice was so great that some journalist members of the censorship found it no easy matter to make progress in Fleet Street after the War—" He was in the Press Bureau ; he can't be any good."
Looking back over the interval of years, it has to be recognised that this newspaper attitude towards the censor- ship was grossly unjust ; that even if the censorship staff had consisted wholly of members with the double qualification of p.s.c. and practised editor many of the incidents would still have happened ; and that in effect the censorship did its work well and, as a first effort on a national scale, was a credit to all concerned—censors, Press and public. But it will be a grave error not also to recognise that the same attitude will be adopted again, even if less uncompromising, because the causes are fundamental and ineradicable. These causes are, on the one side, the eager, impatient newspaper spirit intolerant of all war inefficiency (real or seeming) and, on the other side, the conditions inherent in all wartime censor- ship. Apart from the inevitable proportion of human errors and the absurdities that can arise from too literal an inter- pretation of rules and regulations, you cannot extend the War Cabinet to include all censors and newspapers, so that there must be numerous occasions when even the censors do not know why they are doing this or that, but are merely acting on certain orders from above and can offer no satisfying explanation for their actions. Here you have a limitation alien to a free Press never accustomed to follow orders blindly, no matter from whom they come, and the beginning of trouble and criticism.
In 1914-18 the censorship was a separate body, and, as an isolated target of criticism and ill-will, suffered no hann itself and caused no great harm to others ; the shooting was as if into sand. But when the censorship, instead of being an isolated entity, becomes, as now proposed, part of the Ministry of Information, the situation is very different. The Ministry as a body becomes the target and very great harm is done ; the shooting is into a vital part of the war machine, injuring the co-operation between Press and Government. This is a risk which should not be taken if it can be avoided. Further, it is in the best interests that censorship should be given a position ensuring the greatest possible independence compatible with war direction, a position akin to that occupizd by our judiciary, hearing all sides, but coming to its own decision without fear or favour. Such a position cannot be secured if the censorship be made a part of, and therefore subordinate to, the Ministry. There is also the minor adminis- trative point. The Press in 1914-18 gave up, more or less in despair, making remonstrances to the censorship. It will not do so in regard to what, it is to be hoped, it will consider as its own Ministry, and the extra work thus caused should not be forgotten.
I appreciate that the purpose of the Government and its advisers is probably to bring about a closer relationship between Press and censorship and a better appreciation of each other's difficulties and point of view. This is wholly desirable. But without the certainty that it will eliminate all friction between censors and Press—and there is not even the basis for such certainty—the method chosen is too dangerous and some other method which does not carry the same risks should be sought. This method may be the association with the censorship in an advisory capacity of the Press committee which, presumably, will be attached to the Press sections of the Ministry.
I apologise for the dogmatic terms of this letter ; but your space is limited and my sole purpose is to indicate some considerations which may have been overlooked—not to raise or to enter into controversy.—Yours faithfully, HUGH MACGREGOR.
Previous page
