Home > Online Exhibitions

Censorship

On the subject of your press despatches dealing with the evacuation. These despatches were sent by me through GHQ where, special orders having been issued by the commander in chief, they were recensored. In view of the commander in chief's special orders it was necessary seriously to mutilate the despatches. They have however now reached Alexandria as censored and have been telegraphed to England.

-Letter from 'Major G.S', Dec. 29 1915 to C.E.W. Bean, Australian War Memorial, Charles Bean Personal Records, 3DRL6673 item270 AWM

REFERENCE
Copy of Bean's 'mutilated' despatch as it appeared in The Sydney Morning Herald ten days after he filed it.
The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 January 1916, NLA newspaper call no. NX 354
Click to view manuscript

This official explanation to Charles Bean for the 'mutilation' of his despatch on the evacuation from Gallipoli was offered on 29 December, some 10 days after the event. Not only is the time lapse a frustration for a journalist trying to get news home speedily but the message reveals, too, the circuitous route copy had to take before it appeared in Australian newspapers.

Due to a combination of censorship, confusion, and, by today's standards, primitive communications, what Australians read in their newspapers about the Gallipoli campaign was not always the whole truth or nothing but the truth. This was not surprising, given that the raw reports of war correspondents were censored twice, first by the military at the Dardanelles campaign General Headquarters on Imbros off Gallipoli, and then by Australian authorities at home.

For a variety of reasons, there are always restrictions on press freedom during war, which inevitably generates friction between the censors and the media. Governments and the media justify restrictions in terms of denying comfort to the enemy and maintaining morale on the allied side. The media generally respect the need to avoid helping the enemy by providing useful intelligence such as details about troop movements and armaments, but chafe when censorship is abused or invoked to cover up military failings or to achieve political ends.

The most authoritative account of war correspondence internationally since its beginnings in the middle of the nineteenth century is by the Australian journalist Phillip Knightley, author of The First Casualty. The title is drawn from the famous statement by United States Senator Hiram Johnson 'When war comes, the first casualty is truth', made, ironically, in 1917. Knightley's central argument is that war would not last as long, or be as brutal, if the media made more vigorous efforts to avoid unwarranted censorship and the public was allowed full access to the facts. In relation to the First World War, he is critical of the media, particularly the British newspapers, for failing to report conditions on the Western Front more fully and effectively.

Censorship of press despatches from correspondents reporting from Gallipoli was, if anything, more severe than in Europe. The isolated location enabled the military authorities to exert tight control which affected both the British and Australian journalists. The latter had additional problems as the Australian Government became determined to suppress any bad news which might deter the recruitment of new volunteers.

Censorship was a new experience for Australians and, as Professor Ernest Scott noted in Australia during the War, volume 11 in the series Official History of Australia in the War of 1914-1918 (NLA 940.394 AUS, p. 63) it 'ran counter to the very deeply rooted customs and prejudices of this country'. Confronted by war however, 'There was general willingness on the part of newspaper proprietors to conform to the rules laid down by the censor, but in the beginning it was not always easy to determine what the rules were, nor was there always co-ordination between the branches of government service as to what should be published and what ought to be prohibited'.

Regulations under the War Precautions Act 1914 (Cwlth) created new offences including publishing any information in relation to the movements of ships or military forces, advocating disloyalty to the British Empire and spreading false reports likely to prejudice recruiting. Apart from some special instructions, notably relating to the Gallipoli evacuation, Australian newspapers during 1915 could publish material provided it had military censorship approval from Egypt and met Australian guidelines.

Information about the troops of the first contingent was subject to censorship before they even left Australia. Army authorities gave The Argus permission to print a photograph of the Melbourne embarkation. The navy objected, claiming that publication of any details endangered the lives of the 30 000 soldiers and sailors in the convoy. The result was an order prohibiting any newspaper leaving Australia for two weeks and banning the publication of any other embarkation photos for a further three weeks. All mail to the Far East was stopped for a week. In addition, a separate branch of naval censorship was established pertaining to all shipping matters.

The mixture of self-censorship and regulations was confusing when the already militarily censored despatches from Gallipoli arrived to be dealt with by Australian newspapers. Press correspondents at Gallipoli were required to submit all their writing to the field censor, Captain William Maxwell, to be approved under regulations drawn up by and enforced by the British Army. Although he later found the level of censorship at Gallipoli unreasonable and questioned it, Bean believed initially that as long as the censorship was reasonable, it was an essential element of war reportage. In a despatch which appeared in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette in June 1915, as he headed for the Dardenelles, he warned his readers that there would be times when he would have to stay with 'safe subjects' and might not be able to tell them the whole story. He said, 'There are certain periods in a war when the publication of news could become so obviously risky that it is best suppressed altogether'.

Correspondents like Ashmead-Bartlett were frustrated from the beginning by heavy handed censorship. On 18 July 1915 he complained bitterly in his diary, now held in the Mitchell Library, at the State Library of New South Wales, that:

I thought there were limits to human stupidity but now I know there are none. The censorship has now passed beyond all reason. They won't let you give expression to the mildest opinions on any subjects ... There are now at least four censors all of whom cut up your stuff ... Thus only a few dry crumbs are left for the wretched public. The articles resemble chicken out of which a thick nutritious broth has been extracted.

Maxwell's task was made easier by the isolation of the area that he oversaw, and the technological limitations on the peninsula with regards to despatching cables. The Gallipoli campaign was fought on the edge of a virtually uninhabited mountain range, with no populated towns nearby. In Egypt, correspondents had access to commercial cabling facilities where they could lodge their despatches without being subjected to the level of censorship that plagued the Gallipoli correspondents. The only avenue to cable messages from Gallipoli was through the official channel established by the military on Imbros.

In his analysis of military censorship during the First World War, historian Kevin Fewster concluded that Australia was nonetheless well served by her war correspondents.

Like all correspondents at the war they were forced to operate within the confines of very restrictive censorship. This meant that their readers were often given a highly distorted version of the actual events. Bean, in particular, fought many battles with the British field censors trying to have the restrictions eased for Australia. His efforts yielded some success, something which was an achievement in itself.

-Kevin Fewster, 'Military Censorship in Australia During the Great War', Australian War Memorial MSS0836, p. 112.

REFERENCE
Bean's diary entries dated 20-22 June 1915
Australian War Memorial, AWM 3 DRL 606/9/1.
Click to view manuscript

What became most galling for the correspondents was not censorship protective of names, dates, locations, and other specifics of battle that might endanger their own troops but the censorship that was attempting to disguise the level of difficulty and disaster confronting the Dardanelles campaign; also, the prohibition of any criticism or questioning of military decisions. The situation in Australia became more precarious when censorship became allied with recruiting. As casualty lists grew and the first days of the landing extended into months with no ground being gained, government and military authorities were concerned at the adverse impact of the news on recruiting. The correspondents, on the other hand, found it increasingly difficult to avoid criticising the situation and they became more irritated by the censors. Even Bean, who believed Maxwell was a good and fair censor, became aggravated with other members of headquarters who felt it was also their role to censor his despatches. Bean felt they were denying the public at home their right to know the true state of the war.

His diary expresses his despair at not being able to represent the reality at Gallipoli. On 20 June, Bean noted in his diary that a translation of a derogative Berlin Courier article on the allied attack at Gallipoli, published in Alexandria in the Peninsula Press, seemed to him to be 'literally and absolutely correct'. He added that 'this is the point to which the Censorship has reduced us-that the German official accounts are far truer than our own'. Bean came out strongly against the style of censoring that tried to rule out 'any truth calculated to “depress or alarm” the public'. That was 'worse than useless', he said, 'it is harmful. The one thing to buck them up is to let them know exactly how things are-good or bad'.

REFERENCE
Bean's diary entry dated 26 September 1915
Australian War Memorial, AWM 3DRL 606/17/1
Click to view manuscript

Bean observed that censorship came to be misdirected. He noted also that the embellishment of soldiers' bravery by some correspondents had reached such an extent that if he were to try to publish the true nature of the heroism 'the tender Australian public, which only tolerates flattery and that in its cheapest form, would howl me out of existence'. His experience on Gallipoli led him to complain that the censors should spend less time eliminating 'facts' from articles like his and more time keeping gross exaggeration and untruth in check.

 

IMAGE
Recruitment poster
ENLARGE IMAGE
We took the hill, come and help us keep it
col. recruitment poster; 86.2 x 54.5 cm
Recruitment poster
Pictures Collection

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMAGE
A view of the unbroken mountainous ranges and ravines of inland Gallipoli Peninsula, Turkey, May 1915
ENLARGE IMAGE
J.P. Campbell
A view of the unbroken mountainous ranges and ravines of inland Gallipoli Peninsula, Turkey, May 1915
Pictures Collection