BOROUGH ADVERTISING.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2674, 2 December 1909, Page 6

BOROUGH ADVERTISING.

DISCUSSION .AT THE BOROUBH COUNCIL.

At last night’s meeting of the Borough Council a letter was read from the manager of the “Gisborne Times” Co., Ltd., stating that the company in the past had experienced considerable difficulty in obtaining a fair share of the borough advertising, and asking that in future they should receive an equal share of printing and advertising. The Mayor stated that the letter was on account of a large advertisement regarding the loan proposals, which it was necessary to publish by law. An insertion had been authorised in each of the local papers, and afterwards it was decided to make the “Herald” the official organ of the Council and order the insertion of the said advertisement o-nce a weeK for the required number of times. They only advertised to comply with the law, and he would remind Councillors that the loan proposals were very cost-, ly. They must not think of the convenience of newspapers, but of the general good of the ratepayers.' Cr. (killins regretted that the letter should have come before them at that stage. Each of the local -pipers took a different view of municipal politics, but notwithstanding this, lie felt that if the Mayor and Councillors would look at the .letter impartially they would see that it was not a loan proposal advertisement that was referred to. but the general business. He held that a fair division of the work ought to be made between the two papers. The “Times” took an important .part in municipal politics, and accepted an equal share of responsibility in setting forth to the public municipal opinions. In fairness to the ratepayers not alone the paper that supported the Mayor but also the paper that gave fair and fearless criticism should receive a fair distribution of what the Council had to give. He moved that a return bo prepared and presented to the Council of the monies paid to both papers during the past two years. v Cr. Barton seconded the motion, in order, as he said, to see that both payiers were fairly treated. It was not wise that any question of comparison should be allowed to rise in the natter, and as a paper the “Times” deserved a share o'f the'Council’s business. He suggested in such a case as the Mayor had mentioned, alternate advertisements in the two papers. • Or. Petfcie moved as ah amendment that in future the “Times” gets ".its fair share of the printing and advertising work,.of, the Borough. Cr Somervell seconded the amendment’. He, held that it ivas a good thing to Have -two papers, as readers got both- sides of a. question, qffio “Times” should undoubtedly have their full share of any work the Council had to give. .

Cr. Kirk expressed himself as being in sympathy with the motion, as long as lie could be sure that the mover did not intend to make any,, reflection on any act of the Council or of the officers of the Council. They were not there in the interests of any paper, and personally he thought that there were too many advertisements, >both paid for and free. He claimed that the ratepayers would bo better served if the Council reports in the papers wore much shorter. The Mayor urged the Council not to be weak in the matter they were considering. , Because- an editor chose to send a letter like had beep sent, were they going to fall into line; 1 Ho trusted they Would not friv either motion or amendment, especially as 110 specific instance of unfair treatment lmd been given. It meant that if all advertisements had to go into both papers tho expenditure on roads would have to . bo" curtailed, and he hoped the Council would bo content to merely receive the letter. Personally lie did not put himself about to. supply information to the “Tmies,” as he did to the “Herald,” because he thought the “Times” was not working in the best interests of the Borough. Neither motion nor amendment was called for. They should receive the letter and' ask for a specific instance of unfair treatment. Or. Collins regretted that the Mayor had opened up very debatable matter. It was morally impossible for any specific instance of unfairness to be given. The amendment was .then put to the meeting, and was carried by 5 votes to. 3. Crs Darton, Collins, Clayton, Smith and Somervell voted for, and the Mayor and Crs. Harris and Maynard against the amendment. Cr. Jyii'k declined to vote, and left his chair while the division was being taken.