284 285 - 2 - 286 - 3 -

SECRET
EXECUTIVE BOARD
Wednesday, 29th January 1941

Present :

D.G.

D.D.G.

Sir Maurice Peterson

Lord Davidson

Mr. Radcliffe

Mr. Fraser

Mr. Macgregor

Mr. Gates

Mr. Wiltshire

Mr. Hodson

Mr. Darvall

Mr. Ridsdale

Mr. Waddell (Secretary)

1. The minutes of the meeting on 28th January were taken as read and approved.

2. INCLUSION OF ENEMY COMMUNIQUÉS IN GLOBEREUTER SERVICE

The question was discussed in the light of the papers which had been circulated. Sir Maurice Peterson said that he felt there was a distinction between allowing circulation of enemy communiqués by Reuters in Empire countries and allowing circulation in foreign countries. It was unfortunate that it was not at present possible to exclude the communiqués for certain destinations. He drew attention to the exclusion of British communiqués from enemy controlled news services, but it was pointed out that from the point of view of Reuters as a commercial agency they had to take into account the very complete services of enemy and allied news provided by the great American agencies. The disabilities which Reuters must suffer on this account were in Sir Maurice's view unavoidable in war time and he adhered to the view which was stated by Mr. Ridsdale that inclusion of enemy communiqués by Reuters was a work of supererogation since they would reach the public abroad in other services and their circulation by Reuters gave them a standing which they might not otherwise have. Mr. Ridsdale made the further point that valuable transmission time was at present being taken up by circulation of what was admittedly blatant German propaganda.

[RC/170]

It was suggested that enemy communiqués might be carried by the Reuters service, but not regularly; they could be included only when they dealt with substantive stories for which a rebuttal could be provided. It would not matter if the rebuttal did not appear until a short time after the publication of the communiqué. In reply to this the point was made that in the view of a news agency attempting to provide a world service, the issue of a communiqué by the enemy must be taken as a news fact which had value in itself, whether or not the contents of the communiqué were true. From the point of view of Reuters it was vital to their position that they should provide a complete service.

In regard to certain specific parts of the world it was pointed out: (a) that in South Africa in Mr. Hodson's opinion the competition between Reuters and the American agencies was so keen and the desire of the newspapers for a complete service (i.e. including communiqués of both sides) so evident that the decision to exclude enemy communiqués from Globereuter might swing the newspapers into taking the American services; (b) that in the Far East where Reuters were at present struggling to hold their position and the American agencies were claiming facilities (notably in Singapore and Hongkong), it would not be fair to Reuters to ask them to compete without enemy communiqués in their service. (in regard to this point the D.D.G. pointed out that it could be argued that if we decided to admit the American agencies in such places we might very well exclude the communiqués from Globereuter; if we were keeping the others out we ought to be impartial, but we need not be impartial if we admit them); (c) that in Latin America some of the smaller papers, e.g. in Santiago, Rio and provincial centres, which at present take Reuters only, would be forced into dropping Reuters in order to get a complete service.

Mr. Radcliffe summed up the essence of the discussion in saying he felt Reuters’ claim in principle to be maintained as a completely impartial reporting organ could not be regarded as of great importance since it must be known throughout most of the world that whatever Reuters said was at least not contrary to the view of the British Government, but he felt also that we must take real account of their practical point that they could not in fact provide a complete and full news service without the inclusion of enemy communiqués. The D.G. explained that the discussion was intended to be preliminary to his advising the Minister on the question and it was clear that if we gave a direction to Reuters that direction must be carried out. He agreed with Mr. Radcliffe's summing up, emphasising that the vital practical difficulty was to provide suitable comment on the communiqués at the time when they appeared. It was agreed that the discussion should be adjourned to the following day's Policy Committee.

3. RESPONSIBILITY IN THE MINISTRY FOR ARRANGING TOURS

Mr. Hodson explained in regard to the paper which had been circulated that he did not want the Empire Division to have responsibility for arranging tours, but only that they should make the necessary Press contacts and pass on to some central Tours Department the wishes of the Press, Mr. Darvall explained that in the American Division a great deal of time was spent in seeing American Journalists in connection with tours and other facilities, and he felt that if it were decided to centralise arrangements for tours it might be necessary to transfer from the American Division at least two people who had become expert in the work and knew the personalities, He did not favour a decision to transfer, and said he felt the American Division might lose many of its contacts and that a Tours Department not very closely concerned in day-to-day contacts with American Press men might not take the necessary trouble to secure facilities and arrange tours.

[A/529/20]

It was felt that the question had to be seen from the standpoint of other Departments, who would wish to deal with one section within the Ministry on questions of this sort, and it was agreed in principle that tours should be centralised and that Mr. Darvall should discuss with Mr. Radcliffe the best means of arranging the concentration satisfactorily.