The Prince William and Kate Middleton saga has exercised every media commentator. In broad terms they all agree that it's impossible to know the truth despite the acres of print devoted to the topic. Peter Wilby in The Guardian argues that almost all the speculation was based on false assumptions.
Stephen Glover in The Independent snorts at the claim that class differences played any part at all in the couple's split. And Peter Cole in the Independent on Sunday is amazed that the press are bothering to give the royal family so much attention when young readers are indifferent to monarchy.
Peter Preston in The Observer notes that it is the media that is middle class. That's why papers latched on to the class aspect, even though we are assured that it played no part whatsoever in the break-up.
strong>Brian Cathcart in the New Statesman thinks that "Fleet Street's finest galloping off in all directions at once" is "quite a spectacle."
In all five cases I suspect there is an underlying argument: if papers can get this kind of story so hopelessly wrong, relying on speculation engendered by the (supposed) whispers of "friends" and "sources", what about other stories of greater import?
