Censorship

Pariah of the election

Michael Ivens

When. as director of Aims of Industry, I decided to place four large advertisements in the press attacking the extreme left in the trade unions, I did not realise that Aims would become a political and banned Lady Chatterley. Nor did it occur to me that even in these hard times a call from our agents booking space on our behalf would be greeted by newspapers with the welcome shown by mediaeval villagers to a travelling leper.

This, on reflection, shows considerable innocence, a quality not usually held to be typical of members of Arms of Industry, Who are seen by the left as being born with cloven hooves. "You're going to have trouble with these ads," said know ledgeable friends, and we looked sceptical. After all we had run some 'expensive advertising campaigns attacking Labour's nationalisation plans in earlier days, and the only resisters had been certain women's magazines who do not allow their readers to see corrupting political advertisements. So why should times have changed?

But, alas, they have. In the last few years there has been an uneasy relationship between print unions and editorial management. Newspapers have appeared with white spaces — symbols of printers' disapproval and censorship. Cartoons have been banned. Boxes have appeared alongside articles indicating the print unions' antiimprimatur. And most solemn of all, Mr. Briginshaw's expression of wrath prevented the Evening Standard announcing that he is a director of an employment agency that supplies his union with staff. It was left to Private Eye to announce this surely innocent fact.

The theology of activism by the media journeymen has, of course, been provided by Mr Wedgwood Benn. It has been the fate of many great and lonely thinkers to be misinterpreted by their disciples and it may be that Mr Benn will not approve of some of the acts of censorship I am about to describe. Our first four advertisements — in the Times, Sunday Express, Daily Mirror and Sun — did not provide too much trouble. We argued that there should be more participation in the trade unions in order to keep out the extreme left. We also mentioned that some of our industrial troubles were not unrelated to the extreme left who had been looking for a political confrontation and a means of bringing down the Government.

The Mirror and the Sun were deceptively easy and printed our advertisements without trouble. The Sunday Express had difficulties with its workers and was forced to carry a notice from them disclaiming our advertising. They also offered free advertising space the following Sunday to Mr Ray Buckton. We were not consulted.

The ethics of the situation was rather like carrying a company's advertisement and giving their business rival two free opportunities to hit back at them.

The Times ad also appeared but excised the dread words 'Ray Buckton.' Mr Louis Heren of the Times was quoted as saying that he did not see why we should use Mr Buckton's name when we did not announce the names of our main subscribers. Somewhat surprised I rang Mr Heren and pointed out that the Times had never asked for the names of our main subscribers and I didn't see any difficulty in giving them to him. After a cau

tiously friendly talk we agreed profoundly chat the principles of political advertising could well be explored, and hung up.

Subsequently the Times behaved liberally though still displaying inhibitions about men:toning names. The advertisements were, from Aims of Industry's point of view, a great --..uccess. They drew eight thousand letters of ->upport, and many letters from workers who :eit they were exposed to unfair political ;pressures. We were attacking a nice, big tar.et — the broad flanks of the Communist ?arty and other extreme left groups and we ,:ould hardly miss.

Pleased by the vast tide ot letters from {lady Mirror readers we sent them another advertisement. They refused it. So we asked .-em to put in the old one. They refused that. p Imes apparently had changed. They were not prepared to accept any advertisements at:pc:king the extreme left in the trade unions. The Sun and its sister paper the News of World were not so forthright but sub:cted us to death by slow cuts. First the Sun ,,prned down the new advertisement. They uidn't like the new .illustration.

"OK," we said. "Use the old illustration and new words." They agreed, but came back with a new objection. Aims of Industry was not universally famous and we must define 3urselves in the advertisement.

This did not apply to other un-famous Sun advertisers but we complied. The definition was not long enough. We sent another. "Ah," said the Sun, "but you must also list your council." We began to feel that our patience was being tested, but we complied, though pointing out that the Sun didn't list its directors.

"Not good enough," said the Sun. "You must also give your council's companies." Here we demurred. Our council were elected as individuals, and not as representing their firms. And so our advertisement appeared. It was the last one to do so by ,!ourtesy of Mr Rupert Murdoch's papers. We were promptly banned by the Sun and :)y the News of the World. I was naturally nterested to know why. Newspaper editors Are keen to gain information from the world, Arid I felt that the Sun's Bernard Shrimsley

would be pleasedto set an example as a communicator. How wrong I was!

He seemed shocked that he should be asked for an explanation. That was a matter for his advertising man. But his advertising man, I pointed out, gave no reason. "We don't have to give reasons for our decisions," said Mr Shrimsley sounding like one of those old-fashioned authoritarian bosses so much disliked by journalists.

I was to learn that Mr Shrimsley was not alone as an editor in believing that reasons need not be given, though he needled me more than most. But not all was darkness. The Daily Mail printed our ads regardless. So did the Times, the Guardian, the provincials and the weeklies, though New Statesman readers became wrathful at our appearance. So did the Daily Telegraph though it had a stoppage. By this time we were also publishing advertisements attacking Labour's nationalisation policies, and an Express man, while expressing his enthusiasm for Stalin, added that they couldn't let us attack Labour. "We would do so if Labour were advertising with us," he added.

Not satisfied, I wrote to Sir Max Aitken and mentioned that it seemed odd that a newspaper with the Express's policies should ban an Aims advertisement. Sir Max replied courteously stating that on the occasion in question there was no space. I wrote back courteously stating that the partial banning still went on. This time there was no reply from Sir Max.

Like Cyrano de Bergerac we were battling against invisible foes. No one seemed to want to say why we had become pariahs. Then the International Publishing Corporation announced we were totally banned — both our anti-extreme left ads, and those attacking Labour's nationalisation proposals.

But nice Mr Sydney Jacobson, editorial director of IPC, and nice Mr Tony Miles, editor of the Mirror, did agree to discuss the problem. And this in the world of uncommunicative newspapermen, was something. My eyes narrowed momentarily when Mr Miles mentioned that he no more had to explain why he didn't carry our ads than explain the reason for turning down an ad for a strip club, but this was after all an editor's congenital reflex, and he did go on to explain. Our anti-extremist ads were divisive. Mr Jacobson nodded. Our advertisements were certainly well meant but in the present state of society . . .

But they were accommodating on our antinationalisation ads. They would . change their minds and accept them. I said mildly to Mr Jacobson that Mr Harold Wilson would perhaps find it ironic that we were allowed to attack his policies but not those of the Communist Party and Mr Jacobson also smiled mildly, and we parted on friendly terms.

David Wood of the Times did, however, sympathise and write about the situation. The one journalist, though, who kept pace with our problems and wrote about them was Peter Niesewand of the Guardian. The Times, the Telegraph, the Mail, Tribune and the Sunday Times of the national newspapers, get our second prize for liberalism, but for comment and fair dealing with our advertisements, I must hand the first prize to the Guardian. I regretted some, though not all, of the harsh words I'd said about some of its stuff in the past.

people have to suffer for you. We gathered that members of the print unions were beavering away, though not on our behalf. The papers to suffer were those who put their principles first and accepted us.

We took an advertisement in the Sunday Times, asked their readers to guess the authors of certain statements (they were by Mr Ramelson and Mr McGahey), and asked who was the former head of the KGB who now ran the Soviet trade unions (it was Mr Shelepin). We neither approved nor disapproved of any communist.

An advertisement appeared on the opposite page of the Sunday Times provided by their joint Natsopa chapels and in reply to ours. It attacked the Conservative Government and carried pictures of Mr Heath and other Tory leaders. It would be interesting to know whether it infringed the Representation of the People Act which deals with money spent on promoting or attacking candidates. By this time we felt that the whole question of censorship by the media needed public airing. We also decided to press for a royal commission on the freedom of the press and broadcasting. And so we took a full page in the Times and the Guardian to say just that. The Times asked for an indemnity from our adv2rtising agents for possible libel and did not like our mentioning that the Sun or the News of the World had banned us. But we were grateful that they carried the ad., and very much regretted that they lost circulation while work stopped in order to settle a disclaimer by various printing workers. "The night printing workers of the Times, while disagreeing with the content of the Aims of Industry advertisement on page 11, are proving their belief in freedom of the press by printing this advertisement." No mention was made of lost copies. The summing up came from the Communist daily, the Morning Star (whose experience of censorship consists in the Soviet Union cutting down its purchase of papers in Eastern Europe when the Star got out of line on Czechoslovakia). "Thanks to valiant efforts by Fleet Street printworkers and the protests of other trade unionists and Labour and

Communist people, including -sOrne Fleet Street journalists, some space was obtained

for replies to Aims of Industry and other Tory lies, and in one or two cases, further Aims advertisements were refused."

It is clear then that we have reached a stage in Britain where there is a dangerous threat to freedom of expression in the media through

pressures by the unions. Newspapers, television and radio will be increasingly at the mercy of the unions unless they stand up to them. Newspapers are, of course, in a difficult situation because stoppages can cause awkward loss of circulation — and ultimately of advertising.

I do, of course, recognise that a newspaper is entitled to turn down advertising which

conflicts with its editorial policy. But in our case advertising was rejected which was in line with editorial policy, and with statements in leaders and articles.

There is no more reason why workers should censor papers than that they should censor books. Mr Briginshaw's argument that ,the press is owned by men who are not friendly to socialism can easily be dealt with by the wealthy unions. They should put their hands in their pockets and set up a left wing daily paper. It is ironic that while many writers have been preoccupied with whether small buds of pornography should be allowed to grow freelY on the branches of the media, the unions have been allowed to saw busily away at the tree.