Armament > Co-operation of the press in the organisation of peace

— 8 —
M. Lucien Hubert (France) said that he would leave his colleague, M. de Tessan, who directed
the foreign political news of one of the most important regional dailies of France, to deal with the
technical aspects of the question.
In the first place, he paid a tribute to all the work which had been accomplished, to the excel¬
lent report and to the manner in which Lord Cecil has explained and commented on the situation.
He agreed with Lord Cecil that all efforts must be based on the entire liberty of the Press. Lord
Cecil had shown how such liberty was sometimes menaced by publicity contracts, Government
subsidies, etc. Of course, it was for the newspapers to protect themselves against such menaces,
but the League could help them by doing its best to counteract false and dangerous news. The
antidote for false news was true news. He had no need to insist on that point, which had been
sufficiently emphasised by previous speakers. False news had never perhaps been a greater
danger to the world than it was to-day; therefore the League must fight it, the Press must aid the
League, and the League must aid the Press.
D’Annunzio once dedicated a book to Anatole France in the following terms: “ To him whom
both error and truth seek equally to beguile ”. The same might be said of journalists, except that
journalists sought for truth, while error sought for them—though it should be remembered that
there were some truths which it was not always a good thing to make public. He believed,
however, in the force of truth. There was an African proverb which said that, however early in
the morning a lie set out, it would be overtaken by truth before the evening. The League should
aid journalists in their task and should rely on the journalists themselves to do the rest.
Sir Donald Cameron (Australia) said that there was no need for him to emphasise the
supreme importance to peace of the accuracy and understanding nature of all information of an
international character published by the Press. The problem of avoiding the publication of news
that might either be false or, even if true, harmful if released at a time of national crisis, was, he
was sure, receiving the sympathetic consideration of newspaper proprietors and journalists’
associations throughout Australia. Reports received by the Australian Government from
Australian journalists’ associations showed that the very heavy responsibility of the Press in
this matter was fully appreciated. That the danger existed was self-evident. He thought the
most effective action would be to bring journalists and newspaper proprietors throughout the
world to realise their immense responsibility. It was difficult to say how this result could best
be achieved. He felt sure, however, that the subject should not be approached without a close
historical investigation of the effect of Press utterances upon national feelings in past crises and
the apparent influence of such utterances on the development of those crises. This was a most
necessary undertaking if the League was ever, with the assistance of the Press, to ensure that
news should not be published if it were false or, if true, harmful.
In considering this question, the fundamental, and, in his opinion, vital principle of the
freedom of the Press must always be borne in mind. Any restrictions placed on the Press would
eventually prove more harmful than beneficial. The whole question should be approached
with very great care. Personally, he did not think that when the League had come to consider the
question of the co-operation of the Press in the organisation of peace there had been any suggestion
of imposing control on the Press. In such matters, however, co-operation, unless carefully
directed into the right channels, not infrequently resulted in control which was tantamount to
restriction.
It was perhaps unnecessary to emphasise the inestimable advantage of a free Press. Those
advantages were, however, set off b}^ the disadvantage that some journalists or newspaper pro¬
prietors endeavoured to seek publicity or profit by the publication of exaggerated or untrue
statements, even when such statements might dangerously inflame public opinion. The most
effective manner in which such danger could be avoided was the provision of an ample supply
of true and accurate information. The end to be attained was a candid and truthful presentation
of news of international concern and it could never be attained without the goodwill of newspaper
proprietors and journalists themselves. Provided the problem were approached in the right
spirit, a great step forward could, with the co-operation of the Press, be achieved in the maintenance
of world peace.
M. Valdes-Mendeville (Chile) said that it was obvious that the Chilian Government fully
approved the efforts being made to secure the co-operation of the Press in the organisation of
peace, since, in 1925, the Chilian delegation had been the first to raise the whole question. At
that time the proposal had perhaps seemed to be Utopian. Time had been necessary to allow the
question to mature.
The first result of the proposal had been the Press Conference of 1927. The question had
since then entered into a second stage. The third stage would begin with M. de Tessan’s proposals,
which the Committee would discuss later. The importance of the first stage should not, however,
be minimised. Many of the recommendations of the 1927 Conference had been carried out, while
others were in process of execution; for instance, the Madrid Conference for the Revision of the
International Telegraph Convention including the proposal to institute urgent Press telegrams
and a deferred Press telegram service.