THE PERIL OF THE PRESS BUREAU
It is one of the curses of our Parliamentary system that every piece of
criticism is immediately ascribed to either party or personal motives,
and politicians whose conduct or methods are impugned, for whatever
reason, promptly assume, and try to make others believe, that their
opponents are actuated by the usual party or personal methods.
At the present moment, happily, we have, for the first time within our
memory, no politics; the nation stands as one man in its resolve to
make an end of the Teutonic aggression against the peace of the world.
In the recent discussion in the House of Commons, however, Sir Stanley
Buckmaster, head of the Press Bureau, upon whom has fallen the rather
ruffled and uncomfortable mantle discarded by Mr. F.E. Smith, seems
to have interpreted the very unanimous criticism of the censorship as
a personal attack upon himself. As a brilliant lawyer, of course he
had no difficulty in making a brilliant reply to a fallacy originated
entirely in his own brain.
In very truth the personality of Sir Stanley Buckmaster concerns us
not at all. He is a loyal Englishman. He does not originate the news
which the Press Bureau deals out with such belated parsimony. No one
blames him for the fact that the nation is kept so completely in the
dark on the subject of the war. If it were possible for Sir Stanley
Buckmaster, personally, to censor every piece of news submitted to the
Press Bureau, there would, I venture to think, be a speedy end to the
system--or want of system--which permits an item of intelligence to be
published in Edinburgh or Liverpool, but not in London; and that the
speeches of Cabinet Ministers, reported in our papers verbatim, would
be allowed free passage to the United States or to the Colonies. I wish
here to do the head of the Press Bureau the justice to say that he is
an Englishman who knows his own mind, and has the courage of his own
convictions. Yet that does not alter the fact that the Press censorship
as a system has worked unevenly, with very little apparent method, and
with an amazing disregard of the best foreign and colonial opinion
which, all along, it has been our interest to keep fully informed of
the British side of the case.
When the subject was last before the House of Commons, some very
caustic things were said. Mr. Joseph King, the Radical member for North
Somerset, moved, and Sir William Byles, the Radical member for North
Salford, seconded, the following rather terse motion:
"That the action of the Press Bureau in restricting the freedom of the
Press, and in withholding information about the war, has been actuated
by no clear principle and has been calculated to cause suspicion and
discontent."
Now it will be noted that there is, in the first place, no possibility
of attributing this motion to political hostility. Both the mover
and the seconder are supporters of the Government, not merely at the
present moment, as of course all Englishmen are, but in the ordinary
course of nightly political warfare. Mr. King did not mince matters.
He roundly charged the Press Bureau with exercising inequality,
particularly in denying the publication in London of news permitted
to be published in the provinces and on the Continent. He pressed,
too, for the issue of an official statement two or three times a week.
This, of course, has since been granted, and it is a very decided
improvement. Mr. Joynson-Hicks, from the Conservative benches, very
truly emphasised the fact that the people of this country want the
truth, even if it meant bad news, and added that they also wanted to
hear about the heroism of our troops and the valorous deeds of any
individual regiments.
Sir Stanley Buckmaster, in reply, denied somewhat vehemently that he
had ever withheld, for five minutes, any information he had about the
war, and asserted that nothing had ever been issued from his office
that was not literally and absolutely true.
Now, as I have said, Sir Stanley Buckmaster's hide-bound department
does not originate news, and cannot be held responsible for either
the fullness or the accuracy of the official statements. When Sir
Stanley Buckmaster tells us that he has _never delayed_ news I accept
his word without demur. But when he says nothing has been issued from
his department which is not "literally and absolutely true," then I
ask him what he means by "literally and absolutely true"? If he means
that the news which his department has issued has contained no actual
misstatements on a point of fact, I believe his claim to be fully
justified. If he means, on the other hand, that the Press Bureau, or
those behind it, have told the nation the whole truth, he makes an
assertion which the nation with its gritted teeth to-day will decline,
and with very good reason, to accept. To quote Mr. Bonar Law's words
again: "from the beginning of the war as much information has not been
given as might have been given without damage to national interests."
To such full information as may be given without damage to national
interests the nation is entitled, and no amount of official sophistry
and hair-splitting can alter that plain and demonstrable fact.
Mr. King, in the resolution I have quoted, charged the head of the
Bureau with exercising inequality as between different newspapers. Now
this amounts to a charge of deliberate unfairness which it is very
difficult indeed to accept. The House of Commons, in fact, did not
accept it. None the less, the fact remains that not once or twice, but
over and over again, news has been allowed publication in one paper and
refused in another, not merely as between London and the provinces, but
as between London newspapers which are, necessarily, keen rivals. In
support of this assertion I will quote one of the strongest supporters
of the Government among the London newspapers--the _Daily Chronicle_.
There will be no question of political partisanship about this.
After quoting the views of the _Times_ and two Liberal papers--the
_Star_ and the _Westminster Gazette_--the _Daily Chronicle_ said:
"The methods of the Censor are, certainly, a little difficult to
understand. There reached this office yesterday afternoon, from our
correspondent at South Shields, a long story of the sinking of vessels
in the North Sea. It was submitted to us by the Censor, who made a
number of excisions in it. The telegram was returned to us with the
following note by our representative at the Press Bureau:
"'The Censor particularly requests that South Shields be not
mentioned, though we can state "from our East Coast correspondent."'
"In the meantime the evening newspapers appeared with accounts of some
occurrences in which most of the deletions made by the Censor in the
_Daily Chronicle_ report _were given_! The Censor made the following
remarks and excisions in the 'copy' submitted to him by the _Daily
Chronicle_ representative at the Press Bureau:
Excisions in "Daily Where the Forbidden Passages
Chronicle" Report Appeared
"Please do not mention Shields occurred in the reports
that this came from South in the _Star_ (three times),
Shields." (Note by the _Evening News_ (once), _Pall Mall
Censor.) Gazette_ (three times), _Globe_
(three times), _Evening Standard_
(three times), _Westminister
Gazette_ (once).
"Within twenty miles of _Star_ report stated: "The
the mouth of Shields harbour"-- trawler was sunk thirty miles
(passage eliminated). E.N.E. of the Tyne."
"Landed a cargo of fish This identical phrase, or its
at Grimsby." ("At Grimsby" effect, appeared in the _Star_,
was eliminated.) _Pall Mall Gazette_, _Globe_,
_Evening Standard_, _Westminister
Gazette_.
"Landed by North The North Shields trawler
Shields fishing steamer." was mentioned by the _Star_,
("North Shields" eliminated.) _Pall Mall Gazette_, _Globe_,
_Evening Standard_.
"Bound for Blyth." This phrase appeared in the
("Blyth" eliminated.) _Star_, _Pall Mall Gazette_,
_Globe_, and _Evening Standard_.
* * * * *
From the _Daily Chronicle_ A Central News telegram
Special Correspondent. from Paris ran as follows
(passed by Cable Censor):
_Paris, August 27th._ _Paris, Thursday_
The Ministry of War The following official
issued this afternoon the communiqué is issued to the Press
following note: "In the at 2.15 this afternoon: "In
region between----" (here the region between the Vosges
the Censor has cut out a and Nancy our troops continue
short passage) "our troops to progress."
continue to progress."
"Thus we were free to mention the offending passage on the
authority of the Central News Agency, but not on that of 'our own
correspondent'! What can be more ridiculous than this?"
The importance of the last portion of the _Daily Chronicle_ article
lies in the fact that we have here a clear case of mutilation of the
French _official_ despatch, which the French papers even were free to
publish!
The _Daily Chronicle_ also mentioned another case in which its special
correspondent in Paris sent a long despatch giving, on the authority of
M. Clemenceau, a statement published in Paris, that the 15th Army Corps
gave way in a moment of panic. The Censor refused permission to publish
it, but another journal published a quotation under the heading:
"French Soldiers who wavered: Officers and Men punished by Death."
I ought, in fairness, to say, in passing, that the instances quoted
above took place before Sir Stanley Buckmaster assumed control of the
Press Bureau, and that no responsibility attaches to him in respect of
any of them.
Now, bad as has been the effect of the censorship on public opinion at
home, it has been even worse abroad, and particularly in the United
States, where the German propaganda had full play, while the British
case was sternly withheld. The American Press has not hesitated to say
that our censors were incompetent and discriminated unfairly between
one paper and another. This was untrue in the sense in which it was
meant, but it was certainly unfortunate, to put it mildly, that the
news of the declaration of war was allowed to be issued by one New York
journal, and withheld for seven hours from the Associated Press, which
represents 9,000 American and Canadian newspapers. It was, perhaps,
still more unfortunate that even the speeches of Mr. Asquith and Sir
Edward Grey on the subject of the declaration of war should have been
similarly delayed. Why? Telegraphic reports of these speeches were
held up for _four days_ by the censors at cable offices and were then
"censored" before they were despatched. I ask, could mischievous and
bungling stupidity go farther than this?
Here is another case. In one of his speeches, Mr. Asquith, on a Friday
night in Dublin, announced that the Indian troops were, that day,
landing at Marseilles. The speech, and the statement, were reported
next day in the London newspapers. _After_ the publication of this, the
Press Bureau forbade any mention of the _landing_ of the Indian troops!
In the House of Commons, on September 10th, Mr. Sherwell exposed
another instance of the ridiculous vagaries of the unequal censorship.
In the _Daily Chronicle_, he said, there was published a brilliant
article by Mr. Philip Gibbs--who was with me during the first Balkan
campaign--describing the actual operations of Sir John French's army
up to the last few days. That article was published without comment
and without criticism in the _Daily Chronicle_, yet the cable censor
refused to allow it to be sent to the _New York Times_. Again why?
It is, or should be, the function of the Press Bureau not merely to
supply the public with accurate news, but to make sure that false
or misleading reports are promptly suppressed. The reason for this
is obvious. We do not wish to be depressed by unfounded stories of
disaster, nor do we wish to experience the inevitable reaction which
follows when we learn that we have been deluded by false news of a
great victory. Whatever may be the _raison d'être_ of the Press
Bureau, it is assuredly not maintained for the purpose of assisting in
the circulation of utterly futile fiction about the progress of the
campaign.
Again: _Are we told the truth?_
Early in January a report--passed of course by the Censor--appeared in
practically every newspaper in the country, and probably in thousands
of papers in all parts of the British Empire, announcing the capture by
the British troops of a very important German position at La Bassée.
The engagement was described as a brilliant one, in which the enemy
lost heavily; circumstantial details were added, and on the face of it
the news bore every indication of being based on trustworthy reports
from the fighting line. It is true that it was not official, but the
circumstances made it so important that, inasmuch as it had been passed
by the Censor, it was naturally assumed by every newspaper editor to be
accurate. A few days later every one was amazed to learn, from official
sources, that there was not a word of truth in the whole story! Yet the
Censor had actually passed it for publication. And so the public pay
their halfpennies to be gulled!
I say, without hesitation, that this incident casts the very gravest
reflection on the discretion and efficiency of the whole censorship.
To permit the publication of an utterly baseless story of this nature,
is simply to assist in hoaxing the public and the crying of false
news. We await the next hoax. We may have it to-morrow. Who knows? The
Censors in the matter are on the threshold of a dilemma. If the story
in question were true, it ought to have been published on official
authority without delay: as it was untrue, its publication should have
on no account been permitted.
Consider the circumstances. Sir John French, on November 20th, stated
that throughout the battle of Ypres-Armentières, the position at La
Bassée had defied all efforts at capture, and naturally the most
intense anxiety had been felt for news of a definite success in this
region. Yet the public, after hearing, by official sanction, the news
of a success which would clearly have resulted in the Germans being
driven pell-mell out of La Bassée, were calmly told, a few days later,
that the entire story was a lie. To my mind, and I think the reader
will agree with me, we could have no stronger illustration of the utter
futilities and farcical eccentricities of the censorship as it to-day
exists. Are we told the truth about the war? No, I declare--_We are
not!_
I will go a step farther. The suppression of news by the censorship is
bad enough, but what are we to think of a deliberate attempt to stifle
perfectly legitimate criticisms of Ministers and their methods?
As those who read these pages are aware, I have taken a prominent part
in the effort to bring home to the public the dire peril to which we
are exposed through the presence in our midst of hordes of uncontrolled
enemy aliens. I deal with this subject elsewhere, and I should not
mention it here except that it is connected in a very special way with
an attempt on the part of the Press Bureau to stifle public discussion
on a matter of the gravest importance.
The _Globe_ newspaper has, with commendable patriotism, devoted much
attention to the question of the presence of alien spies in our midst,
and, on many occasions, its correspondence and editorial columns have
contained valuable information and comments. On September 10th last
the _Globe_ published the following letter:
"Press Bureau,
"40, Charing Cross.
"_September 7th, 1914._
"Dear Sir,
"Mr. F.E. Smith desires me to draw your attention to a letter headed
'A German's Outburst,' which appeared in your issue of the 2nd
instant, and a facsimile of which appeared in your issue of the 4th
instant. This letter has received the notice of the Home Secretary,
who expresses the view that 'the articles and letters in the _Globe_
are causing something in the nature of a panic in the matter of spies'
and desires that they should be suppressed at once. In view of this
expression of opinion by the Home Secretary, Mr. Smith has no doubt
that you will refrain, in the future, from publishing articles or
letters of a similar description.
"Yours very truly,
"Harold Smith, _Secretary_."
Very properly, the _Globe_ pointed out that, in this matter, "nothing
less is at stake than the liberty of the Press to defend the public
interest and criticise the administrative acts of a Minister of the
Crown." The unwarrantable attempt of the Home Secretary, through the
Press Bureau, to suppress criticism of this nature, to stop the mouths
of those who insisted on warning the public of a peril which he has,
all along, blindly refused to see, raises a constitutional issue of the
very gravest kind. The _Globe_ promptly asked the Press Bureau under
what authority it claimed the "power to suppress the free expression
of opinion in the English press on subjects wholly unconnected with
military or naval movements." Mr. Harold Smith's reply was the amazing
assertion that such powers were conferred by the Defence of the Realm
Acts. He wrote:
"Press Bureau,
"40, Charing Cross.
"_September 8th, 1914._
"Dear Sir,
"I am instructed by Mr. F.E. Smith to acknowledge your letter of
to-day's date. On Mr. Smith's direction, I wrote you a letter, which,
on re-reading, you will perceive was intended to convey to you the
opinion of the Home Office, rather than an expressed intention
of censorship in this Bureau. You will, of course, use your own
discretion in the matter, but Mr. Smith thinks that a consideration
of the terms of the Defence of the Realm Acts (Nos. 1 and 2), and the
regulations made thereunder, will satisfy you that the Secretary of
State is not without the legal powers necessary to make his desire for
supervision effective.
"Yours faithfully,
"Harold Smith, _Secretary_."
This reads very much like a threat to try the editor of the _Globe_
by court-martial for the heinous offence of suggesting that Mr.
McKenna's handling of the spy-peril was not exactly what was required
by the exigencies of the public safety. I must say that when I read
the correspondence I was inclined to tremble for my own head! So
far, however, it is still safe upon my shoulders. I, as a patriotic
Englishman who has dared to speak his mind, have no intention of
desisting--even at the risk of being court-martialled--from the efforts
I have continued for so long to arouse my countrymen to a realisation
of the dangers to which we are exposed by the obstinate refusal of the
Government to face facts.
The privilege of the Press to criticise Ministers was boldly asserted
by the _Globe_, which, in a leading article, said:
"That correspondence ... raises issues directly affecting the
independence of the Press and its right to frank and unfettered
criticism. At the time when we are receiving from our ever-increasing
circle of readers many gratifying tributes to the sanity of our
views, and the informing character of our columns, we are accused of
publishing matter calculated to induce panic, and we have been called
upon to suppress at once the articles and letters directing attention
to the dangers arising from the lax methods of the Home Secretary in
dealing with the alien enemy in our midst."
After referring to a statement made by Mr. McKenna in the House of
Commons the previous day as likely "to do something to allay public
anxiety" on the subject, the _Globe_ proceeded:
"We are content with the knowledge that the attitude of the _Globe_
has done something to convince the Government of the widespread
feeling that the danger from the alien enemy we harbour is real, and
the fear justified. Here we should be content to leave the question
for the present, but for the attitude of the Home Secretary in seeking
to prevent comment and criticism on his administrative acts, coupled
with the veiled suggestion from the Press Bureau of power possessed
under an Emergency Act. This attempt at pressure is made through a
department set up for quite other and legitimate purposes.... If a
Government Department, under cover of an Order in Council made for a
wholly different purpose, is to shield itself from an exposure of its
inefficiency, a dangerous precedent is set up, dangerous alike to the
community and the Press."
We have to bear in mind, in this connection, that the Press Bureau
had just been reorganised. Mr. F. E. Smith had resigned, on leaving
for the front, and _the Home Secretary was the Minister responsible
to Parliament for its conduct_. At his request the Press Bureau
endeavoured to prevent the _Globe_ continuing to criticise his action,
or rather inaction. Well indeed might the _Globe_ say: "We must reserve
to ourselves the right, at all times, to give expression to views on
Ministerial policy and even to dare to criticise the action of the Home
Secretary." And I venture to say that, but for the jealousy inherent
among British newspapers, the _Globe_ would have had the unanimous
support of every metropolitan and provincial journal, every single one
of which was vitally affected by the Home Secretary's preposterous
claim.
The claim of the country for fuller information has been expressed in
many ways, and by many people, and it has been admitted by no less a
personage than Mr. Asquith himself. In the House of Commons early in
September Mr. Asquith said the Government felt "that the public is
entitled to prompt and authentic information of what has happened at
the front, and they are making arrangements which they hope will be
more adequate."
That was months ago, and, up to the present, very few signs of the
"prompt and authentic information" have been perceptible.
Even more significant is the following passage from the latest
despatches of Sir John French, which covered the period from November
20th to the beginning of February:
"I regard it as most unfortunate that circumstances have prevented
any account of many splendid instances of courage and endurance, in
the face of almost unparalleled hardship and fatigue of war, coming
regularly to the knowledge of the public."
Now I do not want to read into Sir John French's words a meaning that
he did not intend to convey, but this passage certainly strikes me, as
it has struck many others, as a very definite plea for the presence at
the front of duly accredited and responsible war correspondents.
And why not? News could be still censored so that no information of
value could reach the enemy. We should not be prejudiced one iota, but,
on the other hand, should get prompt and trustworthy news, written by
skilled journalists in a fashion that would make an irresistible appeal
to the manhood of Britain. And we should be far nearer than we are
to-day to learning "the truth about the war."
It has been urged, on behalf of the Press Bureau, that of late
matters have been very much improved. My journalistic friends tell
me that so far as the actual working is concerned this is a fact.
There has undoubtedly been less of the haphazard methods which were
characteristic of the early days. But there is still too much of what
the _Times_ very properly calls the "throttling" of permissible news,
and, in spite of the fact that two despatches a week are now published
from Sir John French, we are still in the dark as to the _real_ story
of the great campaign. Neither our successes nor our failures are
adequately described. We are still not told "the truth about the war."
And I cannot help saying that the deficiencies of the official
information are not made up by the tactics of certain sections of
the Press. There is too much of a tendency to magnify the good
and minimise the bad. There are too many "Great Victories" to be
altogether convincing. As the _Morning Post_ put it:
"There seems to be a large section of the public which takes its news
as an old charwoman takes her penn'orth of gin, 'for comfort.' And
some of our contemporaries seem to cater for this little weakness.
Every day there is a 'great advance' or a 'brilliant victory,' and
if a corporal's guard is captured or surrenders we have a flaming
announcement on all the posters."
It is very true. From the fiercest critics of the Press Bureau's
methods we do not to-day get "the truth about the war," even so far as
they know it. Even the _Daily News_ has been moved to raise a protest
against the present state of affairs, and as recently as March 15th
declared that the mind of authority "is being fed on selected facts
that convey a wholly false impression of things."