For the last three years, a group of newspapermen have been meeting in Manhattan, discussing what the United Nations should recommend about newspapers in general. The idea of such a conclave--called the Freedom of Information Convention--belongs to an American newspaper society, which in the glow of the inter-Allied good-fellowship that followed the Atlantic Charter began agitating for a code to make the world's journals as free as those in America. The glow has dulled now, and the Convention has contributed much to its expiration.

During its sessions, many nations demanded clauses to protect their "national prestige and dignity," and insisted that newspapers promote peace and exclude war propaganda. Latin American countries suggested that publication of "unfair" stories should be a criminal offense.

Perhaps the only weapon available to oppose such repression is moral indignation. This cannot ensure the desired results as effectively as a flotilla of battleships could in times past, but it is one that nations obsessed with national appearances are bound to fear. The code devised during the Freedom of Information Convention would, if passed, destroy this weapon, for its broadness and restrictive tone would lend any sort of repression the tinge of international acceptance.

Perhaps, as some have maintained, success in a matter like this is too much to expect on first attempt, and condemnation should be withheld until the Convention has talked over the problem further. But there is more than beginners' ill-luck involved, for what the Convention seeks to guide is the height of heterogeneity. The World Press includes government and party organs, responsible independents, newspapers which are one big editorial, and many other different types. Moreover, those attempting to supply guidance offer no less in their conceptions of newspapers' responsibilities. Differences in the type of journalism their nations have had to contend with explain this only in part; the greater cleavage is obviously political. Conventions facing these problems can hardly produce a code guaranteeing liberty to the world's newspapers.

Despite these prohibitive obstructions, many nations are suggesting that the UN set up a permanent commission to meet and make recommendations on freedom of the press, one that at least would "ventilate" divergent opinions. Ventilation is all very well, assuming that it produces fresh air. But since there are more nations ready to counsel repression than those upholding the principle of a free press, the atmosphere such a commission would produce could only be oppressive.