Reactions To Newspaper Criticism

N OT long ago an important person — very important, insofar that he is to an extent associated with companies controlling millions of pounds of sub scribed capital —became angry because we had criticised adversely certain of his activities. So he threatened the Pacific Islands Monthly with extinction; and he went to the length of interviewing certain advertisers, and informing them that they would incur his costly dis pleasure if they continued to support “that rag.” The advertisers —to their credit be it said —were rude to him, and continued to advertise.

This is by no means an isolated case.

In the 5J years that have elapsed since I established this journal, and began to tell the truth, as I see it, I have been threatened with divers punishments and penalties. There are two classes of men who cannot bear newspaper criticism — the thick-necked plutocrat, accustomed to the grovelling obedience which is commanded by wealth; and the pin headed bureaucrat, who is convinced that he and his regulations cannot pos

sibly be wrong. Their reactions to cri ticism are quite different.

The plutocrat probably shouts and waves his arms, and seeks means by which he can stamp upon the neck of his critic. “Who owns this rag?”

“Where does its revenues come from?” — and off he goes, to use his money-power either to get at the owner, or scare off the newspaper’s customers. So far, this class of gentleman has done me little harm. I am myself the owner of this paper, and I am not easily scared. I know of only two advertisers, among the hundreds who support us, who have been driven out of the P.I.M. by malignant influences of the kind described.

The offended office-holder is a more difficult proposition. Monsieur Money bags, who uses his wealth in monopo listic fashion for anti-social purposes, is a public enemy, and can be dealt with like any other menace. But the acts by which Monsieur Bureaucrat arouses cri ticism are committed, almost always, with the best of intentions. It is simply that he is a fool, or a man whose judg

ment is coloured by his prejudices, so that he uses his authority, unconsciously, in unjust or oppressive fashion. A posi tion of administrative authority de mands, not only knowledge and experi ence, but also clear vision—especially in relation to the future —and a judicial mind; and many men reach those posi tions by length of service, industry, and loyalty, and are without the judicial and visual equipment. They protect their positions by hanging on to the letter of their well-thumbed books of regulations; and they reply to criticism by spitting venom. This factor —the “personal equation” —is well recognised by critics of public administration, and due allow ance is made therefor by fair-minded men.

Certain Islands bureaucrats who have been under criticism have shown their teeth, in no uncertain fashion, to the Pacific Islands Monthly. They have used their official authority sparingly; but their personal influence has been active and savage. They even have attempted, on occasion, to enlist the aid of commercial and financial interests in a campaign against this journal. We have been aware of these things, but we

have attempted no retaliatory action.

Human nature is the same, the world over. Allowances must be made.

But, in view of one or two recent in cidents, it is perhaps desirable that I re state the position and policy of the Pacific Islands Monthly. The journal is owned by Pacific Publications Ltd., and I own all the shares in that company.

So long as I and the company pay our debts, I shall remain the owner. Ag grieved gentlemen, therefore, are only wasting their time in seeking elsewhere for owners of the journal, who might be induced to put a muzzle on me.

So far as our aims and objects are concerned, we never have deviated from the policy we announced in 1930 —publicity service for the Pacific Islands ter ritories. That embraces a multitude of things, summed up as co-operation with all interests concerned to obtain better administration, better trade, and better living conditions. Looking back over the years, we can claim fairly that we have been of assistance in many ways to residents, to trading interests, and to the Administrations.

Certain things that we did brought us no pleasure in the doing. We gave very much offence to various worthy officials of New Guinea because of our agitation in the Larkin case; but we believed—and still believe—that James Larkin was cruelly over-punished for the crime he committed. We made bitter enemies by our criticism of New Guinea Goldfields Ltd.; but we believed—and still believe —that that monster concern has done dis service to the Territory of New Guinea by squatting unprofitably for so long on so rich a section of the New Guinea goldfield. We have given offence to some Fiji interests because we wholeheartedly support the Governor’s policy in relation to the constitution and franchise; but we believe that the Governor’s view is the long-sighted view, and will best serve British Imperial interests in the Pacific. We have been criticised because we do not attack “the big firms”; but the primary purpose of the big firms is to make profits for their shareholders, and, so long as they make them without oppression, cruelty or tyranny, and pro vide efficient services, it is not our busi ness to attack an accepted and legitimate

system.

R. W. Robson.

Mr. “Jock” Mclntosh, overseer of the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. at Ba, Fiji, was swept from his horse and drowned while crossing the Ba River on the night of January 2. Mr. Mclntosh, who was married, was well known in Suva and the northern district of Fiji.