Are You Smart Enough to Read the Spectator?

This is a couple of weeks old now, but it is still a fun read. Rod Liddle in The Spectator of 27 November 2004 asks the question "Is Britain clever enough to support more Spectator readers?" It is a tongue-in-cheek argument that The Spectator, with a circulation of about 65 000 is being read a large number of people who are probably not intelligent enough to be doing so:

That figure of 65,000 already contains several thousand people who buy The Spectator by mistake, believing it to be one of the profusion of TV listings magazines, or one of those new soft-porn publications for women. Again, some people will buy the mag because they like the cut of our jib. But there are many who buy it because they feel it an affirmative and aspirational thing to do; it is the apogee of conspicuous consumption.

According to the latest social study (by Mike Savage) an estimated 3 per cent of the population of Britain consider themselves ‘upper class’ or ‘aristocracy’. That’s nearly two million people: clearly, the overwhelming majority of them are either lying or deluded. But this new elasticity between the classes, this notion that because you own a 1997 Porsche Carrera you are somehow elevated in your social standing and social worth, is a deeply regrettable feature of our times and perhaps one reason why The Spectator’s circulation is so high. Buying The Spectator, you see, should not confer upon one the right to read it.

I love the affectation of intellectual snobbery that the article adopts, an elitism of the intelligentsia. The Spectator is one of my favourite magazines at the moment--great book reviews, witty commentary, intelligent analysis. It is definitely one of the models that I will attempt to emulate if I ever get around to starting my own magazine.