Feral is such a lovely and unusual word: it was not included in the 1981 edition of the Oxford Universal Dictionary which sustains my need for a tame vocabulary. I turned for help to The Wordsworth Dictionary of the Underworld, just in case a term used for media might be lying there. I got "ferret" (to cheat a person) and "ferry" (a prostitute, Australian; she carries many passengers), but alas no "feral."
But as a practicing, full-time beast, I know what it means. It is just the kind of adjective that an Oxbridge-educated prime minister of Britain would use. Or perhaps the prime minister of a Commonwealth nation, although the quality of English is not what it used to be when Indian prime ministers still wore only tight homespun pajamas and loose homespun shirts.
One cannot imagine Tony Blair's best friend, George Bush, using it, for instance. Would Bush know what it meant, particularly since "feral" is not in the 1981 edition of Oxford Universal? If a speechwriter put it in his text, he would probably pronounce it "foral" in any case, and wink. It is quite possible, however, that Blair just might have told his pal: when the day's work was done, the joint press conference over, Blair with a Scotch turned wearily toward Bush, the latter holding a milkshake, and said, "Those bloody awful feral journalist bastards!" I can see Bush nodding, full of approval, a bit apprehensive about what precisely "feral" meant, but certain that it was something from the axis of evil.
It is true that journalists do not have the high moral standards of today's or even yesterday's politicians. The British journalist has been immortalized already in four lines written by a poet whose name I prefer to forget:
You cannot hope to bribe or twist
Thank God the British journalist.
But seeing what he will do,
Unbribed there is no reason to.
Even without being bribed these silly British journalists go out, for instance, and reveal how Blair sanctioned, abetted and covered up bribery in arms deals with Saudi Arabia. Nor will they take a hint, or understand a wink or a nod and keep quiet about Blair's lies on Iraq, which he now justifies by saying that what he was looking for anyway was not a nuclear missile that could destroy Britain in 45 minutes but democracy. (Blair has found democracy, and it is destroying Iraq every 45 minutes.) It is clear that Tony Blair's anger is directed not against the tabloids, who restrict their content to basic instincts. His ire is against those who should be raising serious issues but succumb to sensationalism -- like the Sunday Times, which did the arms scandal expose. And the Economist which, despite its reputation for sobriety, supported Blair when he started the Iraq war and then had the temerity to publish a cover story headlined: BLIAR.
That is the point, of course. Tony Blair is a liar.
Why should anyone who tells lies about Iraq tell the truth about media?
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
