[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR] SIR,—Few people who have
studied your article on " The Owners of the Press " will quarrel with your conclusion that pluralism is on the whole harmless today. There is, however, one practice fostered by pluralism, which seems open to criticism —a practice illustrated by the following excerpt from Who's Who. X. Y. Z. (I withhold the name) " Contributor to Sunday Times (Scrutator), Daily Sketch (Candidus), Daily Telegraph (A Student of Politics) . . ."
Everyone who reads these papers knows the vigour with which these three Pen-men play for their side in national politics today. Their influence on public opinion must be increased by the belief that three journalists of standing have but one solution of the problems which beset us and one condemnation of those who think differently.
It may be said that if one man, under three different names, did not present precisely the same arguments, encomiums and disparagements in these papers, three men would. If the opinions of group papers are indeed shaped in a world of that kind there is something to be said against pluralism. The truth is, of course, that the distinguished and Protean Oracle in question—the Hope of his Side in three Elevens—speaks his own mind and my grievance is that he speaks as three men not one. Even to think of him is to approach the subtleties of the Athanasian Creed.
" The Press is Unanimous." Here is a unanimity which is not all wonderful.—Yours faithfully,
Previous page
