EVERY SO OFTEN, an editorial comes along that is so mystifying it is almost impossible to work out what the team were thinking when they came up with it. Last Thursday, 28 May 2026, we saw the quintessential example of this phenomenon in the Australian Financial Review (AFR): ‘Billionaire barons have every right to use their money to influence us’
时不时地，会出现一篇让人摸不着头脑的社论，你几乎无法揣测编辑团队在撰写时究竟在想什么。上周四（2026年5月28日），我们在《澳大利亚金融评论报》（AFR）上看到了这一现象的典范：‘亿万富翁男爵们完全有权利用他们的金钱来影响我们’。
Only it isn’t really silly. It may read as though it were composed by the work experience kid, or the result of a misguided ChatGPT question, but it is actually another deliberate, calculated component of our society's prevailing, albeit naïve, narrative. One carefully curated by mainstream media to ensure we all remember our place and that that place can never inhabit the palatial heights of those in charge.
但这绝非真的愚蠢。它读起来可能像是由实习实习生写的，或是ChatGPT误用提示词生成的产物，但实际上，它是社会主流叙事中另一个刻意、精算的组成部分。尽管这种叙事显得天真，却由主流媒体精心策划，以确保我们所有人都记住自己的位置，并意识到那个位置永远无法企及掌权者所居住的宫殿式高度。
The gist of the piece relies on a detailed, if completely idiotic, premise that the ‘well-heeled [ala Gina Rinehart or major AFR shareholder Bruce Gordon, for instance] are entitled to fund and champion causes they care about’. Apparently, this entitlement... can extend to prejudicing the trial of alleged war criminals, such as Ben Roberts-Smith. Or promoting bigoted politicians, the likes of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON).
文章的核心依赖于一个详尽但完全荒谬的前提，即‘财力雄厚者（如吉娜·莱因哈特或AFR主要股东布鲁斯·戈登）有权资助并倡导他们关心的事业’。显然，这种特权……可以延伸到偏袒涉嫌战争罪犯（如本·罗伯茨-史密斯）的审判，或推广持有偏见的政治家，比如宝琳·汉森的‘一国党’（PHON）。
The AFR's sycophantic “editorial” (apparently now a euphemism for shameless promotion of plutocracy masquerading as informed opinion) goes on to advise us, ignorant oafs, how important billionaire philanthropy is in Australia in areas 'fiscally constrained governments can’t match'.
AFR那谄媚的“社论”（显然现在已成为无耻推广寡头政治的委婉语，伪装成有见地的观点）继续向我们这些无知的蠢货说教，讲述亿万富翁的慈善事业在澳大利亚那些“财政受限的政府无法匹敌”的领域中有多么重要。