Omaha daily bee., 1921-08-12
Cabinet and the Press.
British View of the Flare-Up
Between Premier and Publisher.
(From the Manchester Guardian.)


| minister and the foreign secretary. The writer
seemed to grudge them bitterly the distinction
| (both likely and desirable in the case of Mr.
! Lloyd George, Ireland permitting) of represent
ing us at the Washington conference on the Far
| East and the limitation of armaments. He said
| that MIR. Lloyd George was dishonorable and
Lord Curzon person OF pompous and pre-
tentious manners who kowtowed to Mr.. Lloyd
| George. The form of attack was certainly not
| quite in the best vein. 1t was too strictly per-
sonal, too much OF Splutter of excited vexation;
| nothingln the matter in hand seemed to account
for it. Still there was evidently one quarter, il
not two, in which it fulfilled the function of rude
things meant to annoy Lord Curzon retorted
! by closing some door or other in the foreign Of
feet is not said which door, and this point is
of moment-to the uncivi writer's colleague, the
Times reporter, and yesterday Mr.. Lloyd George
was challenged in the House of Commons to say
what he could in defense of this mode of parry
ing his enemy's swashing blow.
What he said in reply was not quite clear
and leaves us in sincere doubt whether to think
that he and Lord Curzon did very right thing
or thing not at all justfable He said that "of-
tcia information is of course available, as before,
to the Times, but the special favor accorded to
1t by tradition in the past is entirely withdrawn
1t all depends what this Special favor" was.
Was it something beyond the ordinary liberty
accorded to all reputable newspapers to call at
the foreign office and be told whatever recent
news about foreign affairs is not regarded as an
official secret? The newspaper reader should un-
derstand that for many years past the chief gov
ernment departments have wisely adopted and
we'll and courteously carried out the practice of
telling the press all that they rightly can. instead
OF telling them as little as they possibly can Mr.
Joseph Chamberlain was pioneer of the better
system and it has gained an increase of prestige
from the great success with which it was adopted
by the army halfway through the war, after the
<1n~e loI teI
equipped ministry now has, like each of our ar
mics in the war, part of its staff detailed to tell
as much news as possible to anyone accredited
to receive it as of the recognized channels
of public information. But there has also been
known in the past another kind of issue OF Of
fetal news to the press. Ministries have cult
waited specially close relations with some indi-
vidual journal, have wooed it with gifts of Of
hcial information withheld from the rest of the
press, have primed it on the eve of new de-
partures in policy, and have naturally counted
on receiving some equivalent for these favors in
the form of support or tolerance for departmental
policy, or of silence about departmental misad-
ventures or scandals. A fragrant example of such
special favor" existed at least as late as the be-
ginning of the war, when London newspaper
had got itself so deeply embedded in the affec-
tions of the war Office that room there was Sc
riously said to be kept for the special of its
representative. Is it this kind of Special favor
dCCOIQeQ 10 the lines Dy trdQlllOn IN the past
that has now been "entirely withdrawn"
If it is, all that the press and the public can
say is that it is better late than never but that
so obviously wrong an arrangement ought not
to have waited for abolition until the Times was
uncivl to Mr.. Lloyd George and Lord Curzon
Where such special favors" exist, you have the
beginnings OF the semi official journalism which
thickened the atmosphere of pre-war Germany
Russia, and Austria. A journal which, protesting
a sense Of duty only to its readers and its coun-
try, enters into an obscure commerce in special
favors" with ministerial departments is like
lawyer carrying on secret and ambiguous rela-
tions with parties from whom it is his business
to protect his clients. The whole duty both of
the paper and of the department is to the public,
and no good ever comes in the end-however
plausibly it may be defendsd-of system the
essence Of which is the exchange of valuable
news tor convenient support or indulgence. The
news is the employers-that is, the countrys-
property, and ought to be conveyed to it directly,
openly, and equally as possible, and not bartered
away tacitly for present or future Special IA
vors from some pushing newspaper with
sophistical conscience. IT. on the contrary, Mr.
Lloyd George only means by Special favor
accorded to the Times by tradition in the past
the ordinary access OF newspaper to the ordl-
nary daily communications of the foreign office
to the reporters, then the withdrawal Of this
favor" seems to us quite wrong. He was fully
justified yesterday in saying that his govern
ment had in the past shown mpartiality in this
ordinary issue OF news and had not tried to
avenge itself on those of US who have freely criti
cised it or him by starving our readers of in
formation to which they have right. But if
what has been done has been simply to turn the
Times reporter from the foreign Office door at
which other reporters go in, then there has been
a breach of that good record. In that case the
Times should have the support of US all for its
protest, and might we'll receive the support, too,
of organized working journalists, however little
they may admire the incivility which started the
trouble. But, first, which is it? Has the foreign
Office abolished an obvious abuse or broken
good custom, cancelled an improper favor or in
ficted improper disability? 1t is rather
large question to have still open after the squab
bic has lasted nearly week. But, while it is
still open, no one can judge whether the premier
in this case deserves praise or blame.