Up Front

with the Editor

Our Apia correspondent, Felise a’a, has a report in this issue about lations between the government of estern Samoa and the local Press. itself, it seems to be just one of ose things, not specially worthy of rther comment in this column. Yet many apparently insignificant de lopments in the South Seas have der connotations.

When I was the ABC’s only re rter in Papua New Guinea about 53 I had a competitor named teve” Stephens who was (and still a personal friend. Steve was then itor and sole reporter of PNG’s ly newspaper of the time, the uth Pacific Post.

The only other journalist in the icle of the territory was Kate llacott-lones, who had resigned im the ABC to become the terri y’s first government PRO. She was good one, too, and there was no ng personal about the professional airy between the three of us.

Steve and I saw it as our job to all the news out fast; VI consid d it her task to feed us only that Donation about government activi -1 that the government felt was fit print, and hoped to hell we uldn’t uncover the rest of it.

Vhen in fact we not infrequently :overed some of the rest of it, VI uld explain to her irate superiors t that was the way democracy r ked and that their best defence > to keep their noses clean. Kate her best by her employers—she : a loyal and dedicated worker— she also understood and fiercely ported the role of the Press. )ne of the government’s difficul was that irrepressible Steve 3hens had a journalistic nose that Je him both warm friends and le nasty enemies. Steve’s view was ; if it happened, it should be re ted, and let the chips fall where / may. It was Steve who started ie Drum” column which today is a feature of the daily Post irier which succeeded the old t. Under Steve’s hand it was a ited, highly irreverent column of zellany which was the best-read ure of the paper.

He didn’t discriminate in his re porting—the government, commerce, planters, missionaries, all got a serve —and Steve especially had no time for those in authority who held that as they were attempting to do the right thing, it was grossly unfair to draw attention to any shortcomings.

In my view, and I was on hand to watch the situation develop over a number of years, Steve’s kind of journalism did the territory a service at the right time in history. He help ed achieve after the war what such men as E. A. lames (of the Papuan Courier ) and Gordon Thomas (of the Rabaul Times) did between the wa rs—that is, get the bureaucrats that abound in every section of every community to realise that public opinion counts.

Despite the views of those who be lieve otherwise, the Press does repre sent public opinion. It has no more privilege, but no less, than the public has, and to restrict it is to restrict public freedom.

PNG’s bureaucrats mellowed as a result of Steve’s constant vigilance on behalf of the public. Some of them even learned to give Steve as good as he gave them, which is one reason 1 believe why the climate of contro versy and debate to be found in today’s Post-Courier is healthier than that found in any section of the Islands Press, although Steve has long since departed New Guinea’s shores.

But I’ll issue a word of warning.

With the emergence of self-govern ment in PNG the Press there may expect new pressures from the bureau crats. There’ll be anew kind of intolerance, more dangerous than the old, because it will have as its base a nationalistic fervour with the dedica tion almost of a religious crusade— the belief by all newly-emergent governments in newly-emergent nations that they have a divine right to be excused from criticism because they are trying so hard to govern in the best interests of the people.

With the recent swift movements to independence in the South Pacific there has begun to develop through out the Islands a government attitude

to the Press that goes like this; “How dare the Press claim it is sympathetic to the ideals of our new country and yet criticise us? The Press cannot be both friend and public critic—not here, while democracy is yet so fragile.”

To use a Pidgin word that took Germaine Greer to court in New Zealand but which she could have used with impunity in New Guinea— bullshit!

Freedom of speech is a basic free dom, in the Islands as anywhere. It’s as basic as the rule of law. Any attempt to restrict it, using the argu ment that Islanders are “different”, that conditions are “different”, has to be resisted.

Attempts to restrict the Islands Press will be many and they will come in all guises. Unfortunately, in some smaller territories — and the Republic of Nauru—Press freedom is restricted because the population is so small, or the economic situation so poor, that an independent Press supported by advertising has not taken root, and the governments have to operate the media.

The news columns of these government-sponsored news sheets are devoid of controversial material, but some of the more enlightened ones run lively letters columns which are both a credit to their editors and proof, if it is needed, that public opinion has to have a platform in the Islands as anywhere else.

Restriction brings a climate of furtiveness and unnecessary sensi tivity, such as that displayed by the Nauruan who sent us a perfectly straightforward letter on the future of the SPC (PIM, May) and asked us to reserve his name “to avoid personal and unjustified criticisms”.

We reserved it; we are glad he brought himself to write the letter and post it, but we wonder how Nauru can overcome the many prob lems ahead of it while its citizens are so reluctant to say out loud what they think. If freedom of expression is to survive in the Islands, it must be truly free, not merely free “Islands

fashion”.

Stuart Inder.