The Guardian, when it rejoiced in the name of the Manchester Guardian, used to be closely aligned with the interests of what used to be called the working class.
Now it is the journal of the inner city elites, the left intelligentsia. Abandoning socialism, it has chosen republicanism, or rather an anti- Royal Family campaign, as the principal reason for its existence.
Some time ago, it acquired the ancient and respected Sunday newspaper, The Observer, and converted it to its cause.
I can remember once seeing bins filled with free copies in a newsagent’s shop in an English town. They were still full, hours later! The sad conclusion –they can’t give it away.
The Australian press cannot gloat. A letter from a whistleblower in Fairfax, published by Crikey, alleges vast numbers of the Sydney Morning Herald are now being given away, but included in the circulation figures.
One takeaway outlet complains about the unwanted papers that its franchisees cannot give away and which clutter their garbage bins. Even the claimed circulation is in decline, just as the population of Sydney has increased substantially.
In the meantime the commentariat continues to campaign for its elite agenda. For many Australians the referendum demonstrated what they had hitherto suspected -they will use bias and manipulation to achieve their agenda.
The commentariat had decided Australia was to become a republic. And that was that.
Fortunately the majority did not agree. Indeed, some may have followed Christopher Pearson’s witty advice- "ANNOY THE MEDIA: VOTE NO!"
More recently the commentariat took the decision that however unsuitable and unstable, the ultra republican Mark Latham should be our Prime Minister.
As Geoffrey Barker wrote in the Financial Review on the very day of the election, but before the votes were counted:” There is a broad political consensus that Latham has won the campaign “
Won the campaign? They all said he won that waste of broadcast time, the televised debate between the leaders.
So perhaps there was a broad consensus – in the commentariat.
And notwithstanding Amanda Vanstone’s admonition not to do it – apparently the good Senator does not regard this as applying to herself -the commentariat continues its personal campaign against the Royal Family.
Thus Peter Fitzsimons, writing in the Sun-Herald on 18 September, 2005, attacked Prince Harry because he has declared he is not going to take any notice of the commentariat.
Doesn’t the Prince understand the superior knowledge, understanding and judgement with which the elites are endowed?
Apparently he does not! For which we should congratulate him. (Incidentally Mr Fitzsimons points out we misspelt his name in a previous column, for which I apologise)
Meanwhile The Observer/ Guardian continues its republican, or rather anti Royal campaign-without achieving much.
In its 18 September, 2005 edition, Mary Riddell, laments that:
"A few months ago, the royals were doomed. The Camilla years had dawned and the media painted the Prince of Wales’s new bride as Marie Antoinette in jodhpurs. According to one poll, less than a quarter of citizens approved of the union, and support for Charles as king sunk as low as 25 per cent."
It was of course all a terrible miscalculation by the commentariat. They thought that by painting Mrs Parker Bowles as an ogre, the Prince’s marriage would doom the Royal Family.
They had not allowed for the fact that the wedding has revealed the Duchess to be an elegant and attractive lady, highly respected by all who know her, including Prince William and Prince Harry.
She and the Prince have gone up in the public’s estimation.
The commentariat blundered again.
Anyone want a free newspaper?
Until next time,