Freedom of the Press, best protected by a Crown

The 2013 Reporters Without Borders (RWB) World Press Freedom Index makes interesting reading. “This year’s index is a better reflection of the attitudes and intentions of governments towards media freedom in the medium or long term."

The same three European countries that headed the index last year hold the top three positions again this year. Of the 2013 Top Ten of the countries with the greatest freedom of the press eight are Monarchies: The Kingdom of the Netherland (Rank 2), the Kingdom of Norway (3), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (4), the Principality of Andorra (5), the Kingdom of Denmark (6), the Principality of Liechtenstein (7),the Dominion of New Zealand (8) and the Kingdom of Sweden (10). RWB: “Although many criteria are considered, ranging from legislation to violence against journalists, [monarchist] countries occupy the top of the index while dictatorial [republics] occupy the last three positions.”

Australia sits on rank 26, better than the rank 30 it occupied the year before. RWB does not explain Australia’s position, but the position in the top 30 may have something to do with the fact that the Australian media suffer from being in the hands of few media companies. News Limited (Murdoch) and Fairfax dominate the media business.

The USA turns up on rank 32, which may come as a surprise for the “great republic”. Constitutional Monarchies like Jamaica (rank 13) fare better than republics like France (rank 37).

The 14 countries with the most restricted media expression are all republics of some sort (people’s republics, democratic people’s republics or islamic republics like Iran, Yemen, Laos, China or Eritrea). The least free Monarchy on this list is the Kingdom of Bahrain on rank 165 (8 ranks better than in 2012).

Republicans never get tired of calling Monarchies “undemocratic” and they love to equate republics with democracies, but in reality nowhere is the freedom of expression and the freedom of the media in better hands than in crowned democracies.

This is a fact pointed out in the Canadian book : Freedom wears a Crown, and is a point well known to Monarchists, but ignored by republicans.

Read More

Belgium's Prince Philippe arrives in WA

WAtoday, published by Fairfax media, has noticed that the heir to the Belgian throne as touched down in Western Australia: Belgium's Prince Philippe arrives in WA: "Crown Prince Philippe of Belgium has touched down in Perth ..."

Read More

Are republicans masochists?

Kathy Lette has been subject of this blog before: Another ex-pat lectures us (17th April 2011) or Prince Charles marked Australia Day (28th January 2011). This time the RadicalRoyalist has to refer to an opinion piece written by Kathy Lette, that was published by Fairfax media (The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald): Republicans beware: a royal baby will help the monarchy.

There wasn’t really anything new or remotely funny in Kathy Lette’s opinion piece. She knows what the Fairfax editors buy from her and she delivers the required opinion.

The reason for this blog entry were the two final sentences of her ranting:

"In truth, Australians are fond of all kinds of queens, but it doesn't mean we want to be ruled by them. So let's not allow a royal baby to be a PR stealth weapon, flying right under our republican radar."

Isn’t it funny, that she does not want to be ruled by queens, especially not by our present Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, but when she fled Her Majesty’s Australian realm. It must be a masochistic streak, why did she not seek refuge in one of these too many republics that plaster this world, but settled with husband and children in the United Kingdom – she is now by far closer to her Majesty’s rule than she was in Australia. And still she is happy to teach us, who live quite happily down under, that we should not allow a future royal baby – and heir to the throne – to be accepted by us.

What is she doing in the UK, except living obviously quite happily on the salary paid by the Fairfax media? She was received by HRH Prince Charles and HRH Duchess Camilla and nobody reported any misbehaving from the passionate republican Kathy Lette. Is this another case of preaching water and drinking wine?

But perhaps Ms Lette should look at the horrendous anti feminist policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has been ignored by the Austraian media, before worrying about living under a Queen.

Read More

"Charles will be our next head of state"

It seems that Shaun Carney, an associate editor of The Age, went too far yesterday. He had admitted:

“Charles will be our next head of state. And, whether I live to see it or not, I'm convinced that Charles' first-born, William, will be Australia's head of state after that.”

Today The Age’s editorial returned to the familiar republican modus vivendi:

“People who have a strong and principled attachment to the institution of monarchy may be relatively few in this country, but there are undoubtedly many who sincerely profess admiration and affection for the monarch. That fact alone may keep the republic at bay for the remainder of her reign.”

And the author of the editorial expressed equally this hope:

“The mystique of monarchy may yet prove to be merely the mystique of a monarch, and popular support for an Australian republic, which has waned in recent years, may revive. For the present, however, an observation of Liberal frontbencher and former republican leader Malcolm Turnbull probably captures the popular mood most accurately: Australia has more Elizabethans than monarchists.”

How much better did Shaun Carney capture the situation for the Australian Monarchy - at present and in the foreseeable future:

“ ...for Australians, the diamond jubilee festivities were our celebration too, because the Queen is our head of state.”

“ Charles seems a decent person who has played his part in raising two fine young men in William and Harry. None of them asked to be born into the British royal family, which, because Britain colonised this continent in the 18th century, is our royal family.

“And we had our chance to go in a different direction, but, by a national vote of 55-45 per cent, chose not to. As recently as the late 1990s, a solid majority of Australians were telling pollsters that they wanted Australia to become a republic, to cut the formal constitutional ties with Britain and to have a full-time Australian head of state. Then the republicans started squabbling about what sort of republic we should have, which cruelled the chance of success at the 1999 referendum, and the opportunity to end Australia's days as a constitutional monarchy was lost.

“Originally, the republicans - especially the direct-election advocates who had supported a ''no'' vote at the referendum - argued that the country would be able to return to the question a few years down the track. It soon became apparent that this would not happen. Then they looked to the period after the Queen's passing as the appropriate time for the move to a republic, convincing themselves that Prince Charles as king would be a turn-off to monarchists - a forlorn piece of wishful thinking.

“In the meantime, public attitudes in Australia have changed. Republican sentiment has been in steady retreat. Last year, the Queen attracted enormous numbers during her Australian visit. The gushing from Australians behind the barricades in Melbourne about the Queen's magnificence equalled the encomiums from their London counterparts this week.

“The republican cause in Australia will always have adherents, but republicanism's moment has passed. Perhaps it will return, but not for a long time.”

To publish a contradicting opinion piece with the all too familiar republican statements one day after Shaun Carney’s admission that the republican crusade has failed to capture the Australians is an effort to re-establish the newspaper’s credentials among the Australian republican circles. Alarming figures haunt the Melbourne branch of Fairfax media. The Age’s sales dropped 13.4 per cent on a weekday in the March 2012 quarter and the Saturday Age lost 12.4 per cent. Instead of transferring 66 editorial production jobs to New Zealand – which lead to a journalist strike of 36 hours in Melbourne – Fairfax should re-examine their editorial policy.

Everybody who follows the RadicalRoyalist knows, that Rupert Murdoch has no friend in this blogger, but it must be said that while The Age lost readers in double digits, Murdoch’s Melbourne tabloid HeraldSun newspaper fell only 3 per cent in March 2012.

Murdoch knows, what people want to spent money on. Last Saturday the HeraldSun offered a 52-page souvenir magazine that was sold with the newspaper on 2nd June, the day before the beginning of the big Diamond Jubilee celebrations. It is a lovely and well-edited magazine with references to the Queen of Australia and the Queen of Victoria – terms you will never find printed in The Age. How did The Age report on the Diamond Jubilee celebrations? They re-printed articles from The Daily Telegraph and the Guardian. Nothing extraordinary, but perhaps the editor thought not being nasty had been praise enough.

But why should one buy a Melburnian newspaper, when there is so little content that pleases its readers?

Read More

Victoria needs more pomp and circumstance rather than blandness

The Age’s and The Sunday Age’s dislike for anything royal is well-known. But this Sunday’s attack takes it to a new level. In today's editorial Return to vice-regal pomp risks alienating Victorians The Sunday Age ridiculously praises governors who breached their Oath of Allegiance by “proposing changes to the constitution that would remove references to the monarchy to allow a transition to a republic”. It might be added doing so without any reference to the people.

Too much pomp? Governor de Kretser inspecting a guard of the Royal Australian Navy.

What was Governor Alex Chernov’s crime according to The Sunday Age?

“Mr Chernov wants functions at Government House to be run on a 'non-commercial basis'. Yet at the fashion festival launch, he acknowledged the festival was 'a significant major event' and one of the 'world's leading events of its kind'. It is also an important part of the economy, and subsidised by taxpayers - as is the Governor himself while he holds the office and lives in his elegant residence with its landscaped gardens. (At the fashion party, Mr Chernov invited guests to inspect some of the rooms.)”

For The Sunday Age only a republican governor is a good governor. But the editorialist goes further by deciding what is relevant to Victorians and what is not. It’s in the same logic that s/he determines: “They [vice-regal appointments] exist for historic and legal reasons but also represent a world view and system of government that is no longer relevant to many Australians.” By the term “to many Australians” it is clear, that the opposite is equally true: To many Australians vice-regal appointments are a significant part of the political structure for the state and the federation itself. While the Monarch is absent, the Governors(-General) represent the crown. It is highly bizarre that the Fairfax editorialist expects them to act as promoters of republicanism.

Significantly The Sunday Age’s agitation led nowhere. When checking the editorial on-line, the RadicalRoyalist was the only one reading it. Doesn’t say that all about The Sunday Age's relevance?

Swearing-in ceremony of Victoria's 28th Governor

Read More

Australian actor Jason Donovan: "I've always believed in the Queen as head of state"

The Queen of Australia held a reception ahead of her 11-day day tour Down Under, which begins on 19th October and will see her open a meeting of Commonwealth leaders.

The Queen meets actor, Hugh Jackman, in the White Drawing Room at Buckingham Palace before a reception for members of the Australian community living in the UK in advance of the Royal Tour to Australia, London, 13th October 2011.

According to The Daily Telegraph X-Men star Hugh Jackman was asked what reception the Queen will get when she flies to Canberra. He replied:

"They love her there, the only issue I know is she cannot make every city.

"Even the republicans - the ones in Australia who want to see Australia move on - still have great respect and love for the queen. I've never ever heard anyone say anything other.

"I did say 'have a great trip to Australia' and she said 'thank you, I'm excited about it'."

According to The Australian, Jackman expressed an admiration for the royal family which he said is representative of most Australians:

"Even the republicans still have great respect and love for the queen. I've never ever heard anyone say anything other."

Another guest at the royal reception was Australian actor Jason Donovan, who has lived in Britain for almost 20 years, said:

"I'm very proud of my Australian roots, I've always been firm about that. When you're away from home you appreciate it a bit more, that's the special connection I have.

"I have to say I've always believed in the Queen as head of state, I don't know whether there's a better system."

It will surprise no one that none of these quotes could be found in The Age's article. However, Fairfax correspondent Karen Kissane admitted:

Britons delicately inquired of Australians as to the warmth of the welcome the royal couple might receive. They were assured that the republican tide was out at the moment.

For once The Age got it right.

Read More

Who knew first about Crown Prince's visit?


Murdoch and Fairfax newspapers argue with each other. That's nothing new, but it is a kind of ironic, that the two equally fiercely republican papers argue about who first published news about the Danish Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary's visit to Australia. Today The Age claimed the crown for itself.

RUPERT Murdoch's excited minions grabbed the 'exclusive' stamp again and plastered it over a Sunday Herald Sun story about Denmark's Crown Princess Mary and Crown Prince Frederik coming to Australia on November 19, the headline saying 'Aussie tour dates revealed'. This column revealed on August 3 that the couple were arriving on November 19 to head the Bright Green Denmark business and trade delegation and show off their twins. Royal bridesmaid Amber Petty is 'massively excited' about the visit. The tabloid said the couple was tipped to attend the Alannah and Madeline Foundation Starry Starry Night ball, a fact also mentioned in this column and in 3AW's Rumour File in July. Not that anyone wants to ruin the 'exclusive' excitement.

Read More

Another ex-pat lectures us

If one would be as rude as republicans usually are, one could say, The Sunday Age’s new attack on the Monarchy came from a typical suspect. Kathy Lette’s photo in today’s paper showed a woman with short hair and long dingle dangly earrings. Sorry, the photo is not online, but the article is: Where there's a Wills …

However if you check her website you find, that Kathy Lette actually does not live in Australia: “She lives in London with her husband and two children and has just finished a stint as writer in Residence at London's Savoy Hotel.” But Fairfax media hide this fact, giving the impression of an Aussie writer publishing for other Aussies. The Sunday Age loves British authors who lecture the stupid Monarchists down under that they should grow up and do, what their senior teachers in the media keep telling them to accept. Of course it is rather impolite and ungentlemanly towards a lady who calls herself “a full time writer, demented mother” to point to her stereotype appearance, but considering what she wrote about our Royal Family, it seems rather adequate. Here are some quotes of her latest oeuvre with false and insulting accusations:

- does the prospect of a tree-hugging, pinstripe underpanted heir to the throne

- why has a pampered Pommy Prince [William] won our affection?

- In royal circles you're considered an exhibitionist if you wear open-toed sandals.

- British royals make the Addams Family look normal. What with the toe sucking, the bulimia, the affairs, the fancy dress Nazi uniforms, Andy's paedophile pals and Fergie and Sophie Wessex's cash-for-access scandals, the Windsors put the 'fun' into 'dysfunctional'

- it's time Australia had a Windsor-ectomy

Her claim ”...which is why recent polls have revealed a steady decline in support for the monarchy...” shows, how out of touch she is with Australia: The figures show a rise on the Monarchist and a decline on the republican side, with the latter having fallen far behind the figures of 1999, when they lost the referendum by 54 to 46%.

You have to feel sorry for the Fairfax media. They tried their best to find another writer than the usual three republican pens – and then they have to rely on someone who lives overseas and lectures the Aussies what is best for them. And fails to understand the reality.

Read More

A critic's view

Sometimes you have to wonder, if incompetence is a precondition to become a film or TV critic. Should you work for the Fairfax media, this alone would not qualify you for the job. A critic must be a raging republican with the ability to abuse the Australian Monarchy at every moment.

Take for example Louise Schwarzkoff, who gave her “critic’s view” on the new SBS series on the Danish Royal Family The Kingdom: Behind the Scenes (to be seen on SBS Two every Friday evening at 8 pm). "The British royal family could never allow a camera crew such access inside its palaces."

Nothing could be more wrong than her opening sentence. After having watched part one of the Danish documentary on 25th February one is reminded of the British series A Year with the Royal Family, shown in Australia in February 2008 on Channel Nine. The style was very similar. The cameras got very close access to Prince Philip who took the TV crew on a ride. The microphones caught very funny statements from Princess Anne and Prince Edward on how they feel when they are “on royal duty”. Not to mention the very impressive testimony of The Duke of Gloucester, who - as son of an Australian Governor-General - spent a couple of years in Australia.

On the first evening A Year with the Royal Family attracted 1.33 million viewers across the nation. This led the more serious programmes, Borderline with 0.989 viewers, Top Gear with 0.799 and the return of Kerry O' Brien to the 7.30 Report, with 0.657 viewers.

Louise Schwartzkoff was obviously not among the 1.33 Australians who watched the British documentary. May be she was appalled by her colleague Tim Elliott’s cranky sausage remarks in The Age on 4th February 2008:

Any program on the English monarchy is bound to be of interest, if only because you sit watching, hoping against hope, to spot a visible panty line or hear, perhaps, HRH inquiring of her Guard at Arms where one might find the crapper. For more than a year, the makers of this six-part documentary were granted "intimate access" to the workings of the British royal family, with tonight's opener focusing on a state visit to the US.

You can hardly expect Big Brother but hopes of any insights are fast extinguished, smothered by Cate Blanchett's fawning narration and an impenetrable blanket of cliches: we hear how hard the White House flower arranger has worked and get some meaningless waffle from Dale Haney, the presidential dog walker.

The Queen, meanwhile, comes across as a cranky old sausage, bored with the ceaseless sycophancy and pointless appointments. "I can't be everywhere," she says, with a dyspeptic smirk. "I can't do everything."

Their Fairfax colleague Larry Schwartz, however, actually watched the documentary and admitted: “You don’t need to be a monarchist to be impressed by this six-part series that tonight sets out to show “what it means to sit on a 20th-century-throne”. (The Age, 18th February 2008).

And another quote from the Melbourne newspaper: A BBC series, recently aired on Channel Nine, Monarchy: the Royal Family at work gives an unprecedented peek into the life and work of Queen Elizabeth and her family over the course of a year. (The Sunday Age, March 2008).

Agreed, you cannot watch everything, but before a critic hits out (Louise Schwartzkoff: “The personable Scandinavians could teach the scandal-plagued House of Windsor a thing or two.”) a journalist's duty must be to consult the own newspaper's archive. Or is the knowledge of how to keep an archive in the times of Google and Wikipedia already lost? Fairfax journalism reached a new low point.

Read More

"Drowning in Royalism"

In August 2008 Fairfax media, owner of The Age, announced the sacking of 550 people – 390 in Australia, 160 in New Zealand, among them 90 journalists. The loss of staff has forced the editors to fill their columns with bought opinion pieces or with articles published overseas. The latest example is Ben Chu’s glossy view on “the hereditary principle”, which was first published on 19th January 2011 in The Independent, a British daily with an unashamedly pro-republican tendency. The Sunday Age’s supplement “Sunday Life” reprinted Ben Chu’s article on 6th February 2011 (nothing better to publish on Her Majesty's 59th Accession Day?) with minor alterations under the title “The born supremacy”:

We are drowning in royalism. First came the gush of national enthusiasm at the announcement of the impending nuptials of Prince William and Kate Middleton. Then we were drenched in critical acclaim and publicity for The King's Speech. By the time the royal wedding comes around in April, our heads will be well and truly under monarchist water.

On the first look, it has its charm, to write an article on royalism, but I am afraid Ben Chu’s problem was, he could not find an explanation for “royalism” in Wikipedia. Because had he found a proper explanation of royalism he would never have ended with “celebrity dynasties”. The French term “royalisme” is quite straight forward:

“Royalism” is a political idea that praises or supports the kingdom, which means a political regime in which the head of the nation bears the title of king or queen, very often hereditary. It is often mixed up with “monarchism”, because there are monarchies that are not royal (i.e. imperial, princely, grand ducal etc. See also the opposite of democracy, and there exist also constitutional monarchies, especially in Europe (UK and Spain etc.). [“Royalism”] opposes republicanism.

Le royalisme est une idée politique qui prône ou soutient la royauté, c’est-à-dire un régime politique dans lequel le chef d'une nation porte le titre de roi ou de reine, le plus souvent héréditaire. Il est souvent confondu avec le monarchisme, alors qu'il existe des monarchies non royales (impériales, princières, grand-ducales...), voire entendu comme le contraire de la démocratie, alors qu'il existe des monarchies constitutionnelles, notamment en Europe (Espagne, Royaume-Uni...). Elle s'oppose au républicanisme.

From this explanation it is quite obvious that Ben Chu could not have been drowning in royalism. He may have suffered from an overdose of royalist memorabilia, newspaper articles and TV coverage, but that is in relation to our Royal Family, which Royalists may channel into royalism.

On the other hand, why is a Fairfax publication unable to find an Australian author to contemplate royalism, hereditary rules and – above all – family dynasties? Ben Chu’s opinion piece was published three weeks ago in The Independent, which may explain, why he did not give a thought on the Murdoch dynasty, whose grip on the Australian media is tighter than ever. Australia is flooded with Murdochism or Packerism and there is no rescue in sight.

Read More

A Royal Response

After last week’s Sunday Age published the result of the latest opinion poll indicating that support for a republic in Australia has slumped to a 16-year low, today’s Sunday Age published three letters to the editor. None came from a republican. The first writer points out:

"Perhaps we wonder what we'd get if we appointed our own head of state or, more likely, had one appointed for us by whichever boy's club was making decisions at the time.

"After all, in Victoria we have an unelected premier who, in the company of a couple of mates, makes decisions related to planning or public works on our behalf behind closed doors and refuses to tell us how much the consequences of those decisions will cost us (for example, the desalination plant).

"At the same time, he's entertaining people who can financially benefit from these decisions and seeking donations from them to enhance the finances of his own political party, with the intention of using that money to advertise that party [in order] to keep himself and his mates in power. Well, we wouldn't want an Australian head of state like that, would we? God save the Queen!"

The second asks:

"If the media has its way and we pass a referendum, what model would be adopted?

"The American public is split down the middle with their "popularly elected" president. The US president is elected by far fewer than 50 per cent of the voters. The British monarch presides over the British Commonwealth of nations of which we are a part. The current monarch has held the position since 1952. In that time, the US has had 12 presidents and are about to embark on the divisive process again. Please do not inflict that on us.

"Let us adhere to what works for us."

The third has a particular demand to the editor of The Sunday Age:

"Does the new opinion poll mean that The Sunday Age will return to reporting in a fair and unbiased way on the Australian monarchy?"

The editor did not give an answer to this question. Only time will tell if unbiased journalism returns to The Sunday Age or any other Fairfax publication.

Read More

Who deserves a chance?

The Sunday Age has urged its audience to vote for the ALP: “With no great enthusiasm, we say the ALP should be returned on Saturday.” Why? “Gillard deserves her chance”. That really sums it up.

Interestingly enough, the editorial did not mention one reason for a Gillard vote that is usually so dear to the Fairfax media: A republic. Not one hint to vote for Labor because of the party’s republican agenda. What does this tell us? No hope for “a” republic under Gillard? In order not to embarrass her, better don’t mention “a” republic. Or should Monarchists not be driven into the Coalition’s arms? After all, a third of the Labor voters said No to a republic in the 1999 referendum. In this close electoral race every vote counts and could decide who shall form the next Australian government.

During the election campaign Julia Gillard has kept quiet on the republic issue. At the National Press Club in Canberra mid-July “Ms Gillard has said that she does not sense that the republic debate is a burning issue for Australians and has refused to promise that she will hold a referendum if elected.”

"Where the republic debate went wrong was that it became too much about what people like me think and not enough about what Australian community thinks. This has to be about a community consensus and I don't believe we are there yet."

What if she never gets there?

Read More

The Age's research unveils Prince Charles' secret

Paola Totaro, The Age’s Europe correspondent, was the lead story of extra, the paper’s quarterly newsletter, published last Saturday. Since 2008 she enjoys the “job from heaven” and “her reporting successes soon included … Prince Charles (the Man Who Would be, er, King …)”. This is probably the most positive reference the heir to the throne could get in Fairfax Media.

The journalist’s portrait has more to tell about her encounter with the Prince of Wales: “It was via the [Foreign Press Associaten in London] that she met Prince Charles, speaking at an award night. This confirmed what Totaro’s research had shown – even while many lampooned him, he’s been warning about climate change for 20 years.”

Wow, what extraordinary piece of investigative journalism do we get here! The Age’s correspondent found out what everybody, who paid just a little respect to Prince Charles, could know. But the Fairfax journalists were too busy “lampooning him”.

Read More

Greedy Fairfax Media

Here we go again. Fairfax Media will try to follow Murdoch's example: Fairfax, News to charge for online

Why pay for propaganda?

Read More

Australian World War II Victoria Cross recipient dies

While the Sydney Morning Herald reported: "

Mr Kenna went to London for the Queen's coronation in 1953 and was presented to her when she visited the newly-restored Hall of Memory at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra in 2000. He appeared on a postage stamp in that year."

... The Age left the Monarchist part of Mr Kenna's biography unmentioned:

"Mr Kenna was born in Hamilton, in Victoria's west, in 1919 and returned there when discharged from service in December 1946.

He worked at the local council and played for the local footy team, was active in army reunions and has led Melbourne's annual Anzac Day march.

Before enlisting in the army in August 1940, he had worked as a plumber in his hometown."

Of course, both Fairfax media failed to mention that he received the Victoria Cross from HRH Prince Henry, The Duke of Gloucester, during his service as Governor-General of Australia in 1947.

This failure of leaving out what was obviously a big part of his life, makes me wonder, once more, just how much we can trust the Australian media to provide the whole story on any topic let alone the state of our Monarchy.

Read More

How to create a Scoop

When Evelyn Waugh published his novel “Scoop” in 1938 he described brilliantly how the media at that time made up a story out of nothing.

His sketching is still in practice and The Age follows his description to the letter.

First: On 2nd April Paul Austin, The Age’s state political editor, reports on a speech the Governor of Victoria, David de Kretser, gave to Rotary leaders in Melbourne in February [!]. In it the Governor more or less urged Victorians to get greener. He urged Victorians to build smaller homes, stop drinking bottled water and wear more clothes in winter to reduce energy consumption and help save the planet. Hardly a call to start a revolution.

In the same issue of The Age, the same Paul Austin asked on the opinion page: “Has Victoria's Governor overstepped office's bounds?” And he gives the answer in the first line of his article: “David de Kretser's forthright views risk politicising his role.”

And pretending he was really worried about the office of the Victorian Governor, Paul Austin concludes: “Many Victorians will applaud these views. Others will not. But where should a governor draw the line? Many people who embrace de Kretser's views on climate change would be horrified if the next governor were to argue, say, in favour of capital punishment or against abortion. Victoria has an activist Governor. The question is, is that what we want?“

Second: On 3rd April it was again Paul Austin who talked to a Liberal opponent of David de Kretser’s February statement, in Governor should 'butt out of politics': “Western suburbs MP Bernie Finn said Professor de Kretser was damaging the office of governor and the standing of the constitutional monarchy by putting his views on contentious issues such as citizenship and global warming.”

And surprise, surprise, in the same issue of The Age an unnamed editorialist (again the indefatigable Paul Austin?) came to the rescue of the Governor’s freedom of speech: “The Governor has the right to speak his mind”: “Other state governors and governors-general — for example, the late Davis McCaughey and Sir William Deane — spoke out on matters of conscience to the greater benefit of society. There was little reason their vice-regal roles should have prevented them from doing so.”

Today part three of the play: "Better for Queen's representatives to walk the talk". Another editorial, this time in The Sunday Age on the vice regal role of the Governor. It summarises the previous articles and editorials, but does not add anything new to the discussion, except for the final chapters.

Here The Sunday Age can draw the conclusion that it was obviously heading for, being a Fairfax publication: “There is little evidence the Governor or Governor-General are divisive figures. What they might be instead are transitional figureheads, providing an example of how the president of a republic might act, were such a person to be appointed.”

After all this week’s efforts The (Sunday) Age finally comes to the climax: “Last week both [Governor-General Quentin] Bryce and Prime Minister Rudd said they believed an Australian republic was inevitable but not imminent.”

But despite all the Fairfax media’s and many politicians’ efforts the editorialist must concede: “… it is not surprising that the republic is on the backburner. Yet for the first time in Australian history, leaders of the Government and the Opposition are republicans, an interesting development that has made little impression on the public mind.”

All the efforts vanish in vain: They made little impression on the public mind. The mini scoop fabricated by The Age collapsed – once again.

But that will not prevent The Age to try a re-start.

Read More

The Age changes the Royal crest

The Age has never made a secret of its republican bias: “… this newspaper has long advocated that Australia should become a republic." (The Age, 15th April 2008).

This 1st April 2009 Paul Ramadge, the editor of The Age, will present the paper’s new masthead. Leaked documents show the changes. “Since our republican attitude was not reflected by the royal coat of arms in the centre of our masthead, we had to remove the crown and replace it with a republican symbol.”

The Age art director Bill Farr is well aware of the ramifications. “The masthead has to convey the feeling of the paper, reflects it content, underline its worthiness,” he says in “extra, the quarterly newsletter for readers of The Age", March 2009 (not available on-line). The current version, developed by Farr and design specialists de Luxe & Associates, had been “working so well after seven years”, but needed a revamp to reflect the newspaper's republican policies.

The crest, the potent symbol splitting the royal motto “Dieu et mon Droit” first appeared on The Age's front page in 1861, featuring a coat of arms, the lion of England and the unicorn of Scotland. They will remain for the time being. “We toyed with the idea of developing a uniquely Australian crest, but it was fraught with indecision,” says Farr. “There’s also been a push to get rid of the crest entirely. A republican push, which is not a surprise. However, while the crest dates you in one way, in another it stamps your authority.”

Therefore The Age opted for a compromise: The Jacobin hat - also known as Phrygian cap - was deemed suitable to make the editorial strategy of The Age clear. In future it will look like this:During the French revolution, the first Phrygian caps appeared on the heads of the French a few months after the storming of the Bastille. They were made of red cloth. To wear the Phrygian cap was indeed a way of advertising one's patriotism.

“The Age’s masthead underwent changes before”, Paul Ramadage wrote in an internal memo. He did not face any resistance neither from the editorial staff nor from Fairfax media, The Age’s owner. However, John B. Fairfax, whose 10.6 percent stake in the company ranks second, remarked: “Almost invariably there are at least two sides to a story, so the task for the journalists is to seek and determine the truth. The publisher must be able to publish knowing the content to be correct and to be the truth.”

New PR-slogan as well
Ignoring Mr. Fairfax's remarks another change is due to be announced: From on 1st April onwards The Age will change its PR-slogan. Posters around Melbourne will no longer proclaim: “If it matters to you, it’s in The Age”, but more accurately: “If it matters to us, it’s in The Age.” The new slogan better reflects The Age’s daily content and will no longer confuse readers who used to miss important news items that were not covered by The Age.

Read More