When in September the British Government decided that the distribution of British news needed to be somewhat enlarged, they did the only thing possible, and approached Reuters with a request that they should increase their normal service of news to foreign countries by some 2,000 words a day, equivalent when expanded to about three columns of this journal Naturally this service had to be paid for, and in the Supplementary Civil Estimates issued on F ruary 23 details of the grant of £6,000 to Reuters appeared as follo "Provision is made for the payment Reuters news expenses incurred in mem of news to foreign ce 1938, at ihe request of His "s G nent. The expenses mainly ce transmission addition words Office wireless telegraph stations."
The matter had been before the House of Commons in a somewhat different form on February 15, when the following motion was discussed and adopted e light of the foreign gov field of propaganda by means of the Press, adeasting and fil this House urges the Government to pa more attention to public y and to render wholehearted moral and cial support to schemes which will n certain of the effective p tion of E ish news abroad In the course of the debate Mr mud Storey (Sunderland U.) who, accord the "Newspaper World," is a directo Reuters pointed out that for three quarters of a century that company had been mainly responsible for the distribution of world news with an independence, accura integrity which had ensured ceptance. British prestige, been maintained, and and understanding of fostered. He suggest ment should make use of world-wide organization, bu upon the one essential condition that its independence hould be strictly maintained, and that while the Government should assist in meeting t cost of the distribution the news service, its collection and selection she subject to no interference whatever.
The debate upon the Estimates makes it q of £6,000 is to be pad for services which Reuters were requested to render the Government. It would be only natural th even if it was not desired to make profit out of th nsactic ness of the grant clearly demonsti that if any were made at all it must h: been microscopic, the news agency was at least entitled to expect that it would be reim-pursed for any additional expe which acquiescence with the Government's t would involve. That remove any doubt whatever as to w payment is in the nature of a ly is not, and out amounts to the reimbursement of the expense incurred in meeting the Government's requirements. In this conn "ointed out that news: as in other parts of the world have benefited by this increase in the dimensions of Reuters service and the y extensive coverage of the various crises which have occurred since September last is very due to the increased wordage provided for by this arrangement. It is also a matter of experience that the qu y of the no way been altered, and ional foreign and British news vailable has shown no indications of any departure from the traditionally im partial standards to which Reuters have consistently adhered. It has not assumed anything in the nature a propagandist plexion, for the news has been distr buted in a manner best calculated to give readers as fair and accurate an idea of what has been trans as is hum possible. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said of some of the other foreign highly subsidized news agencies, whos output requires at all times the closest scrutiny editors through whose hands it passes.
It was inevitable that competitors of Reu ters should seize upon this grant to raise the old cry about subsidization. As Mr. Noel Boker rightly remarks the sum, involved is trifling compared with the agency's annual turnover, and is certainly nct large enough suggest that it would have any important bearing upon the policy of the underta What is of even greater importance as a effective answer to critics is the fact of this grant being so openly discussed in the House of Commons. That is in itself the best possible proof of the bona fides of both the Government and Reuters in the matter, for if the whole transaction had not been completely above board, the secret financing of it would not have passed the wit of the Government to devise. What is of the greatest importance is the statement by Mr.
R. A. Butler, Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the effect that there was no desire on the part of the Government to limit the freedom of Reuters in the compilation of their news service. It may be stated quite definitely that the value of Reuters service to the press of the world would be sadly diminished if it were ever shown that any outside interference had ever been permitted, or that the Gover ment in any way influenced the editing of the news service. The reason why other foreign subsidized news agencies have failed to attain the reputation which is Reuters is the fact that they are very patienti prostituted to the propaganda requirements of the Governments financing them. There are agencies offering s services wholly unjustified by the smallness of the fe which they charge. They distribute new it is true, but for the most part generally d by the politics of the Governments behind them. That is not the case witl?
Reuters. It merely deal news as any other merchant would deal in his own ular speciality, and as long dent and impartial attitude is m tained the payment by the Gover mall sums such as the $6,000 can have no effect upon the general standing of the service.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.