I've had the 20th anniversary issue of Vanity Fair sitting on my desk for over a week. Under normal circumstances, I'd write something about it immediately, but the daunting prospect of reading 20,000 words about "the Royals" as well as the sheer weight and volume of the September issue (ads; not content) filled me with such an overwhelming sense of apathy that I could barely motivate myself to lift the front cover. I briefly considered dispersing the pages in the bug-infested laundry room of my building in hopes that they would bore the insect life to death, but refrained on the basis that I might have to read it in the process. For the sake of consistency, I was planning to eventually overanalyse Graydon Carter's editor's letter (as usual, per this and this) but wasn't looking forward to it. The NYT's David Carr to the rescue. Carr says exactly what I was going to say, but better and nicer: How can you write a scathing editorial about the elitism of the Bush administration (with which I agree, if it makes any difference) and at the same time celebrate the values of monarchical aristocracy, as if there's something inherently virtuous about being born with the right title? Carter says that journalists should be the foes of any administration. And he's right. But unless he's planning on intimidating the Bushies with Mario Testino shots of Prince William, I don't think Vanity Fair's going to be leading the charge.
For Vanity Fair, Bushes are exception to royal rule [NYT]