The Black party added to the gaiety of nations

The Barclay brothers — presumably the new owners of the two Telegraphs as well as The Spectator, though we also read that it is not yet as simple as that — are constantly written about as 'secretive'. How so? They have knighthoods and own several store chains as well as the London Ritz and an apparently increasing number of newspapers. They live in a huge mansion on an island in the English Channel which they also own. By which I mean they own the island, not the English Channel; at least not yet.

They also employ a London public relations firm to represent them, as so many other people do. How a public relations company represents secretive recluses is hard to say. This PR company is ex-directory.

Given their prominent assets and their fame, it is an impressive feat for the Barclays still to have themselves described as secretive, though presumably they would prefer 'private'. They are the beneficiaries of one of the characteristics of our age. When newspapers, over a period, ascribe a particular adjective to someone or something, the person or thing stays thus described, whatever else about them changes. How can people be 'secretive' if they own the London Ritz or the Daily Telegraph? Those two institutions should tell us an enormous amount about whoever owned them. Nonetheless, the Barclays will continue to benefit from being described as secretive. If nothing else, it will deter others from trying to find out their secrets, if secrets there are.

The fallen Conrad and Barbara Black, then, missed a trick. They should have got themselves described for years as 'secretive.' Then Black would not be in the trouble he now is. Those insurrectionary Hollinger shareholders might have been deterred from pursuing them. There is something threatening about anything, or anyone, universally thought of as secretive.

But, it may be objected, how could the Blacks have got themselves described as secretive, given their style of life? To ask that question is to have misunderstood the power, in the modem world, of a recurring adjective. If it is applied often enough about someone or something, it does not matter what it accompanies. Had it been applied to the Blacks, no matter what activities were also described, their fate might have been different.

'The secretive Blacks confine their public

pronouncements to, in his case, long letters and, in her case, columns in a few newspapers he happens to own in London, Chicago and Jerusalem. He took steps to avoid publicity by getting himself made a member of the House of Lords. When not at their homes in Toronto, Manhattan and Palm Beach, they retreat to the island which they own in the English Channel (Britain).

'There, they live in a mansion consisting of no more than half a street in South Kensington. There, dinner is an always unpretentious occasion attended by, for example, Henry Kissinger, Richard Perle, Lord Weidenfeld and the embalmed corpse of Franklin D. Roosevelt — controversially purchased with Hollinger money. Very little is known, then, about the Blacks. "They just don't put themselves about," says a friend.'

But it seems to be too late for them now. Attention turns to the 'secretive' Barclay brothers. But, because of that adjective, journalists will assume that nothing much can be known about them. Unlike the Blacks, they will not be brought down by their 'lavish lifestyles'. And once people have a reputation for being secretive, their every chance remark, in so far as it reaches the public, is considered to be of vast significance. But since nearly everything about them is considered a secret, those who hope to benefit from their patronage have no idea what to make of it all.

'Telegraph could back Labour, says Barclay' was a Guardian headline this week. This brought turmoil to those of us who work for the publications which they seem to be in the process of acquiring. We also read that their acquisition of these publications could take some time. In the interval, what are we supposed to write? These next few weeks will be a difficult time for the Telegraphs and The Spectator, and all of us connected with them. These journals' loyal readers could see an unexpected slant to the news: 'More Tory Unrest Over Howard Leadership': 'Hutton Attack On Blair Makes PM Even More Popular'; 'We've Got The 25 Signatures, Claim Anti-Howard Rebels'; 'Boris to Back Howard In Confidence Vote'; 'Why I Voted Against Michael', by Boris Johnson.

So, over these weeks of uncertainty, we shall do our best. But it looks as if the editors of the publications concerned must reconcile themselves never again to receiving one of Conrad Black's letters for favour of publication and dissenting from the editorial position of the papers he owns.

'One does not have to be a member of Likud to be outraged, or in my case faintly baffled by, and dismissive of, the amount of attention, and the wholly excessive praise, which you devote to that entirely marginal figure in Middle East politics, Jesus Christ.

'I happen to know Governor Pilate. He is a valued member of our main hoard. The action he took at the Easter in question was entirely justified by the security situation. Pontius is not a man to be diverted from his duty by an obscure agitator supported by the New York Times, and the dregs of the counterculture of which he was himself so egregious an embodiment. The governor also acted on the advice of the indigenous religious authorities who, I would remind you, are far from being Roman and who can be assumed to know no more about the region than the average liberal foreign correspondent.

'Not that there is anything wrong with the Romans. They saved Britain from permanent rule by Boadicea and her descendants, Were it not for what the BBC, and the similarly weak-minded, dismiss as Roman imperialism, you Brits would still be running around in loin cloths. . . .

But such diverting letters are no more, at least not in publications owned by the letterwriter, though we must hope he will, if he can bring himself to, write letters to journals that he does not own. In the meantime, much nonsense is now written about him and his wife. He was a fanatical supporter of the right-wing of the Republican party; or of the Conservative party; or of the Likud party.

None of that is consistent with the facts, or with common observation. The Blacks were fanatical supporters of the Dinner party. That is, the wing of the Dinner party with the 'lavish style'. It was their loyalty to and desire to be the leaders of that party which have undone them, and diminished the gaiety of nations.