messages were so mutilated as to be indecipherable. These
complaints led to a declaration by the Foreign Office on Dec. 20
1915, that in future incoming press cablegrams would not be
censored from a political point of view; the responsibility of pub-
lishing would be with the editors who knew that a prosecution
against them, under the Defence of the Realm Act, might result
from the publication of anything endangering the good relations
between Great Britain and the Allies or the Neutrals. This
change, however, only applied to censorship by the Foreign
Office, and messages were still liable to censorship from the point
of view of other departments (Admiralty, War Office, Home
Office or Treasury, for instance) consulted by the Press Bureau
a system which continued until 1919.
Censorship at the Front. It remains to deal with the censor- ship of messages from authorized British correspondents on the several fronts. These were primarily (and compulsorily) censored by military censors on the field, but they all came through the Press Bureau, which occasionally exercised a super-censorship. The methods adopted caused constant grumbling and discontent.
The casualty lists were rigidly and, no doubt, properly sup- pressed, but owing to the representations of the Newspaper Proprietors' Association they were supplied periodically for the confidential information of editors.
In France, at the outset, no correspondents were allowed. In Sept. 1914, owing to demands by the Newspaper Proprietors' Association for more information, an official eye-witness, Gen. Swinton, was appointed. He wrote according to order, and no question of censorship arose. The news supplied was meagre and inappropriate, and it did not take long for mischievous results to accrue, and the official mind was at first disposed to blame the Press for what was wrong in the " publicity " of the moment. On March 12 1915, the following notice was issued by the Press Bureau, warning the newspapers that they were too optimistic in the pictures they gave of what was happening:
" The magnitude of the British task in this great war runs serious risk of being overlooked by reason of exaggerated accounts of suc- cesses printed daily in the Press and especially by exhibiting posters framed to catch the eye and magnify comparatively unimportant actions into great victories. Reported reverses to the enemy are proclaimed as crushing defeats, Germany is represented as within measurable distance of starvation, bankruptcy and revolution, and only yesterday a poster was issued in London, declaring that half the Hungarian army had been annihilated.
" All sense of just proportion is thus lost, and, with these daily, and often hourly, statements of great Allied gains and immense enemy losses, the public can have no true appreciation of the facts or of the gigantic task and heavy sacrifices before them.
" The Director appeals to all those who are responsible for the Press to use their influence to bring about a better knowledge of the real situation, and rather to emphasize the efforts that will be necessary before the country can afford to regard the end for which we are striving as anything like assured. The posters, more espe- cially those of the evening papers, are very often preposterous as well as misleading, and, at such a time, those responsible may fairly be asked to exercise a reasonable restraint and help the nation to a just appreciation of the task it has undertaken and the necessity for unremitting effort to secure the only end that can be accepted."
The newspapers did not take this notice " lying down." On March 26 the Newspaper Proprietors' Association, through its chairman Sir George (afterwards Lord) Riddell, sent the following letter to the Press Bureau, and copies to the Prime Minister, Mr. Winston Churchill, Lord Kitchener and other members of the Cabinet :
"My Council have had under consideration your Memorandum of I2th March, 1915, Serial No. D. 183, for which, in their opinion, there is no adequate justification. The Press has dealt faithfully with the news furnished by the naval and military authorities, but it may well be that the public misunderstand the situation and that this misconception is producing serious results. If, however, the people are being unduly soothed and elated the responsibility lies with the Government and not with the Press. In this connection my Council desire to direct your attention to the optimistic state- ments of the Prime Minister, Sir John French, ' Eye- Witness,' and other persons possessing official information. The Press acts upon the news supplied. If this is inaccurate or incomplete, the Govern- ment cannot blame the newspapers. My Council desire to repre- sent that the methods now being adopted are fraught with grave public danger. Ministers are continually referring to the importance
of energy and self-sacrifice on the part of the industrial population, who cannot be expected to display these qualities unless, generally speaking, they are acquainted with the facts. In dealing with the news, the Naval and Military authorities should consider not only our enemies and the army in the field, but the commercial and industrial classes at home, upon whom so much depends. It is futile to endeavour to disregard the long-established habits and customs of the people.
"As you know, I am writing on behalf of the London Press only, but my Council are confident that their views are shared by the provincial newspapers."
The result of this letter was that Mr. Asquith invited the Association to lay their views before him at a deputation. A free exchange of views took place, with the result that Mr. As- quith invited the Press to appoint a representative who would interview Lord Kitchener and Mr. Churchill each week with the object of putting questions to them and receiving private in- formation for circulation to editors. Lord Riddell was detailed for the duty, and had frequent interviews with Lord Kitchener.
As a result of further urgent representations by the Association, represented by Lord Burnham, Lord Northcliffe and Sir George Riddell, the following correspondents were authorized in May 1915 Mr. John Buchan (Times and Daily News), Mr. Percival Landon (Daily Telegraph and Daily Chronicle), Mr. (after- wards Sir) Percival Phillips (Morning Post and Daily Express), Mr. Valentine Williams (Daily Mail and Standard), Mr. Douglas Williams (Reuters). Mr. John Buchan was succeeded by Mr. (afterwards Sir) Perry Robinson, Mr. Percival Landon by Mr. (afterwards Sir) Philip Gibbs, and Mr. Valentine Williams by Mr. (afterwards Sir) Beach Thomas. Mr. Douglas Williams was succeeded by Mr. Lester Lawrence and Mr. (afterwards Sir) Herbert Rundell.
At the beginning, the regulations for the guidance of corre- spondents were as follows, but for the most part they were allowed to write as they wished.
"Unless officially communicated for publication," the under- mentioned matters were not to be referred to : Strength, composition and location of forces. Movement of troops and operations. State of supply and transport. Casualties. Important orders.
Criticisms and eulogies of a personal nature. Moral of troops.
Before long, however, the regulations were rigidly enforced, and an attempt was subsequently made to strengthen them. A fresh set of rules was promulgated at G.H.Q. in Nov. 1915. They took this form:
(1) Current events must not be mentioned in detail until the events have been made public in the commander-in-chief's des- patches.
(2) Only general mention of the fighting can be made. Nothing outside the official communiques is to be touched upon.
(3) Matters of controversial or political interest must be excluded.
(4) Praise or censure is to be left to the commander-in-chief.
(5) Mention of any information by name is prohibited, including such items as the New Army, Territorials, etc., also names of units or individuals.
(6) The articles of war correspondents must be confined to topographical descriptions and generalities.
(7) Detailed information obtained by war correspondents can be used only when permission is given, and the time of publication will vary according to circumstances.
These regulations called forth an angry protest from the Newspaper Proprietors' Association. The War Office denied all knowledge of them and they were withdrawn. The severe re- strictions on the liberty of the correspondents led to continual complaints by the Association. Notwithstanding these, no marked improvement took place until July 1917. From that date onwards the stringency of the censorship was gradually relaxed, and the army eventually set up an organization to supply correspondents with information, so that in dealing with the German advance in the spring of 1918 they were able to write with freedom. By the exercise of tact, discretion and inviolable good faith, the correspondents gradually won the confidence of the army, so that towards the end of the war officers of all ranks were keen to have them with their troops and to give them every facility permitted by official regulations. A
