ent000946-142

mm?╟÷a THE PRESS that the larger pM ty on their own but \ kom some of JoinTfe emmetl tn news- es. I(wbe^Tndthab jenem situation Sd e Minister JawaharB it taking a new hitcf laced around the nS Noose on the News ?╟úEvery bloody so-called journalist in this country looks to the government,?╟Ñ cried dhoti-draped Ramanath Goenka^n- dia?╟╓s Top newspaper owner (eight three wCekliesgl last week initely close down to. There think I?╟╓ter bluffing was aimad specific, move to lfcise the paper emp^yees. aimed at week saw P ru?╟╓s governm noose it has free press. The noose \fcas been tightenini since India w3k its indep^^p^rrrom Britain in i Q47.m h^^tSrflniuit controls the pay of India|pHwsmen, a fact which gives it a club over both staff and manage- ment. In 1952 a government commission was appointed with sweeping advisory powers over the commercial affairs of newspapers. The Indian government also controls all news distribution facilities, and by in- forming the U.S.?╟╓s Associated Press That its license will not be renewed when it expires late this month, India moved to- ward granting a near monopoly on the supply of foreign news. Agence France Presse got shut out when its Indian out- let, the independent United Press of India (no kin to United Press International), founded in the 1930s by leaders of the Congress 1 freedom movement, collapsed last fall. United Press International, seek- ing a contract to supply Ramanath Goen- ka?╟╓s chain, has been pointedly discouraged by the government. The idea behind India?╟╓s policy toward foreign news agencies is to protect its only- remaining domestic news\-agency, Press Trust of India, from ruinous competi- -Jjion. It is an ironic fact that by-trying to help Press Trust of India (which depends heavily for revenue on the government- owned All India Radio), India is also giv- ing a near monopoly of foreign news, service to the agency that supplies Press; Trust.: Britain?╟╓s Reuters Ltd., long a sym- bol to Indians of British imperialism. It is^even more ironic that India, which won its national freedom so dearly, has created a press which is one of the most drably conformist outside the Iron papers. It wasn?╟╓t. If last week^s edition ran true to form, Ec^e^Jomfer?╟╓s own column in the Jenifer would be eicerpted or reprintedln full in much largXr%South- ^j&estern newspapers^ Thk^easonX Ernest Joiner, as'^orie|bf th^Kst outsVqkenly gpkors m\ the often blur\s|out aper$?╟ : p^ra^j^AW^dOw n H -" make?║:-i Joiner?╟╓s Rejoinders Promptly at *3 o?╟╓clock one afternoon last week, Ernest Joiner, 47, editor of the weekly Ralls, Texas Banner (circ.fi,175), planted a cigar beneath his mustache, wrapped a grimy printer?╟╓s apron about his waist and flipped the switch on the old flatbed press. As the* first ink-wet copies of the Banner began to roll, it seemed much like the press run of any of thousands of other small-town U.S. :lohn V/ilsb6 Editor Joiner Like liquor?╟÷out of town. off with the life savings" of his customers is, in newspaper wording, the ?╟ head of a crumbling financial empire.?╟╓ A two-legged s.o.b. may be questioned in terms of his casual canine heredity, but he must never be called the s.o.b. Tie is.?╟Ñ On Sermons: ?╟úThose who have ex- pressed concern over the editor?╟╓s apparent lack of. reverence will be prostrate with joy to learn that he acquired a new Bible Tast* week. It cost $34.95, has 773,692, words in it, and it is such interesting reading we are considering asking minis- ters of our acquaintance to base a Sunday sermon on it one day when there is: a lull upon the- congregation from an overdose of economics, labor statistics, soil conser- vation, politics and the lagging subscrip- tion campaign for a bigger church.?╟Ñ On Home-Town Morals (after Ralls moviegoers traveled 32 miles to Lubbock to see a Brigitte Bardot movie): ?╟úThey wouldn?╟╓t be caught dead attending it in Ralls. Rallsites take their movies like they take their liquor?╟÷out of town. That way, nobody gets contaminated and all the kids remain vestal virgins.?╟Ñ On a "Banner11 Price Hike: ?╟úWe?╟╓re not apologizing for the rate increase. We don?╟╓t recall that our favorite grocer knocked himself out explaining when our favorite ~ 46-oz. can of. tomato juice jumped from 19/ two years ago to 36/ *as of today. >There?╟╓s nothing prohibitive about $4 a year for a home-town news- paper. That?╟╓s about 7^ a copy. About half our readers loll around coffee shops swilling from four to twelve cups of io<f coffee every day. They shouldn?╟╓t squawk about paying the price of one cup of cof- fee for what we work all week to produce, and to improve their minds with our ver- sion of whatinell?╟╓s happening.?╟Ñ On Bias: ?╟úLast week we printed the honor roll for the colored' school. A couple of characters gave birth to a two- headed calf, sideways, when they read it. Our opinion is that colored students, with three strikes against them on books, equipment and the facilities for study, are to be commended above a lot of white children we know who can?╟╓t make an honor roll with the best of instruction and educational facilities. We think effort should be recognized. We think news should be printed. If these two convic- tions of ours soil the lily-white hands and Christian .consciences of a handful of bigoted Klu Kluckers, they are in- vited to get the hell off our subscrip- tion list.?╟Ñ On Integration: ?╟úI think we can have integration as far as politics and human rights go without getting in bed with Negroes. ! don?╟╓t think anybody ever got pregnant by drinking out of the same water fountain^?╟╓ New Laws in France In the welter of legal reforms pushed through by Charles de Gaulle when he took over France?╟╓s destiny last year, two new laws set the press to trembling. One decreed imprisonment or fines for anyone publishing ?╟úby act, word or writing that which throws discredit on jurisdictional act or decision.?╟Ñ The other authorized the same punishment for ^whoever pub^- lishes before the intervention of the de- finitive jurisdictional decision comment tending to exercise pressures on the de- clarations of witnesses or on the decisions of judges!^ 71 What did the new laws mean? Seeking to find ^ out, newsmen had their worst fears confirmed: no' photographs of court witnesses' could be published; cops, mag- istrates, " lawyers, judges, and witnesses were barred from giving any information to newsmen about cases, under judgment. France?╟╓s freewheeling press reacted ex- plosively. Cried Liberation: ?╟úIt has .been a long time since anyone in France could talk about what is happening in Algeria. Now we will not be permitted to publish what is happening in Franee. ?╟Ñ Last week Minister of Justice Edmond Michelet tried to quiet the outcry. ?╟úWe had an ancient judicial system,?╟Ñ he said soothingly. ?╟úIt has been replaced by a system more modern and liberal.?╟Ñ The French press was not so sure. TIME, MARCH 23, 1959