Press Censorship for NG?

NG?

T is reported from a New Guinea source that a Government circular issued to all departments of the ipua-New Guinea Administration veral weeks ago imposed some sort of ess censorship on all government licials other than heads of depart ents, who thereby become official outh-pieces for their own instrumen lities.

This is said to be designed in order prevent juniors who have no idea of ie “overall picture of development” suing wild stories. There is nothing iry new in this development, as far as 3 can gather, and the censorship bears ) resemblance to the regulations set iwn in Fiji’s Press Bill.

There is nothing so cagey as a senior iblic servant trying to avoid a direct iswer to any simple question—as any le who has ever tried to interview one lows. Therefore, it seems unlikely that apua-New Guinea official censorship ill achieve much, one way or the other — Lose disposed to create wild stories or less at the “over-all picture” (so alously kept from the public by the gher-ups) will, no doubt, continue to > so.

Three years ago, after a visit to New uinea, this writer said that what the rritory needed more than anything was Public Relations Officer who could at mpt to explain the Administration to ie people—and the people to the Ad inistration. The need is just as great )w as it was then. If there is an over -1 picture (or plan) for Papua-New uinea, no doubt the residents thereof 3uld be very pleased to learn more >out it.

It is the opinion of some that, with ie growing irresponsibility of the daily 'ess, a little censorship is justified. The >int is—who is to decide at what point lould a little become a lot? It is an iwritten law of reputable newspapers

that. °tb er fellow’s side of the picture is t 0 be presented, if he wishes it. Press censorship, of even the mildest variety, is a bad thing in that it is open to abuses—the thin end of the wedge that 1 ® P ai ’t and parcel of the Totalitarian state.