g Press is an
oligarchy which still works "in with" the just-less-new parliamentary
oligarchy.

This connection has developed in the great Capitalist papers a certain
character which can be best described by the term "Official."

Under certain forms of arbitrary government in Continental Europe
ministers once made use of picked and rare newspapers to express their
views, and these newspapers came to be called "The Official Press." It
was a crude method, and has been long abandoned even by the simpler
despotic forms of government. Nothing of that kind exists now, of
course, in the deeper corruption of modern Europe--least of all in
England.

What has grown up here is a Press organization of support and favour
to the system of professional politics which colours the whole of our
great Capitalist papers to-day in England. This gives them so distinct
a character, of parliamentary falsehood, and that falsehood is so
clearly dictated by their connection with executive power that they
merit the title "Official."

The regime under which we are now living is that of a Plutocracy which
has gradually replaced the old Aristocratic tradition of England.
This Plutocracy--a few wealthy interests--in part controls, in part is
expressed by, is in part identical with the professional politicians,
and it has in the existing Capitalist Press an ally similar to that
"Official Press" which continental nations knew in the past. But there
is this great difference, that the "Official Press" of Continental
experiments never consisted in more than a few chosen organs the
character of which was well known, and the attitude of which
contrasted sharply with the rest. But _our_ "official Press" (for it
is no less) covers the whole field. It has in the region of the great
newspapers no competitor; indeed, it has no competitors at all, save
that small Free Press, of which I shall speak in a moment, and which
is its sole antagonist.

If any one doubts that this adjective "official" can properly be
applied to our Capitalist Press to-day, let him ask himself first what
the forces are which govern the nation, and next, whether those
forces--that Government or regime--could be better served even under a
system of permanent censorship than it is in the great dailies of
London and the principal provincial capitals.

Is not everything which the regime desires to be suppressed,
suppressed? Is not everything which it desires suggested, suggested?
And is