Abstract:
This thesis examines the role of Malcolm Ross as the New Zealand official war correspondent during World War I and compares his performance and influence with that of his Australian counterpart, C. E. W. Bean. It outlines Ross's early life and attitudes to provide context for his appointment and explains the circumstances leading to his appointment, which were accompanied by terms and conditions that restricted his ability to perform the duties required of him. Criticism of Ross is explored in the context of the political climate in New Zealand; criticism of war correspondents generally is examined in the light of censorship and other government or military restrictions on what could be written. Despite the restrictions and criticisms, Ross was a prolific, active correspondent from 1915 until 1919. Comparisons with Bean are made throughout, both in terms of reporting during the war and post-war, especially with the effects on war historiography in New Zealand and Australia. The thesis concludes that while Ross was the most suitably qualified applicant for the unique position - the only official war correspondent to be employed by the New Zealand Government - his employers imposed restrictions that diluted the power of his pen. Ross paled into a historiographical insignificance compared with Bean, but the fault was not Ross's alone.
