The Daily Telegraph was founded in 1855 by a former Colonel, Arthur Sleigh, to air a personal grievance against a future commander of the British Army.
Subscribers to the stereotypes about one of Britain’s most venerable newspapers might think it’s continued in the same vein ever since.
But while its readership may still over-index on military backgrounds and have their hard copies of a last remaining broadsheet delivered to addresses in the shires, the unfolding battle for control of the titles is a very modern story.
At its heart are questions of media ethics, international relations, the high politics and low psychodramas of the Conservative Party, and the value of old media brands in a digital world.
A formal investigation of the proposed takeover of the Daily and Sunday Telegraph and The Spectator magazine by the Redbird IMI consortium, fronted by US media executive Jeff Zucker and funded by the Abu Dhabi ruling family, was probably inevitable.
In ordering one, culture secretary Lucy Frazer has postponed answering the central question; is it appropriate for a foreign state with a dubious record on human rights and media freedom to have control of a national newspaper?
If she blocks the deal, Ms Frazer will be saying that the Abu Dhabi investment that’s been actively courted for injections of cash into other areas of the economy, from Manchester City to life science start-ups, is not OK for the fourth estate.
Financial crash could have been far worse for UK were it not for Alistair Darling
DCMS issues public interest intervention notice over Telegraph and Spectator purchase
RMT: Rail workers accept deal to end their long-running dispute over pay and conditions
Opposition to the deal
Plenty of her own colleagues have argued that it is not, urging her to block the deal on several grounds, from competition and media plurality to national security.
From former Conservative leaders Lord Hague and Iain Duncan Smith to a phalanx of backbenchers, largely from the right of the party, there have been objections.
Lord Hague cited direct experience of being leant on by the Abu Dhabi government to stifle criticism when he was foreign secretary.
Others have raised legitimate concerns about press freedom and the UAE’s record of suppressing critical media in a campaign loosely coordinated on behalf of the Brexit-backing billionaire Sir Paul Marshall, owner of GB News, who happens to be among the bidders who will lose out if Redbird IMI wins.
He is not alone.
Lord Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail is also a bidder, and Rupert Murdoch, owner of The Times and The Sun, is said to covet The Spectator.
Politics aside, that level of interest is heartening for a media industry in which the death of newspapers has been long predicted.
The continued value of heritage titles
The interest of so many serious bidders in paying up to £600m for the titles underlines the abiding value of heritage titles, even in a digital world.
By contrast, Amazon owner Jeff Bezos paid just £200m for the Washington Post a decade ago, and since then digital-only news brands like Vice, HuffPost and Buzzfeed have flared and faded.
The Telegraph has in recent years made a success of its digital transition, generating more than £250m in revenue from 730,000 subscribers,140,000 of whom still receive a printed copy.
Reliable, repeatable income is attractive, but the Telegraph’s real value to billionaire proprietors and Gulf states alike may lie in the influence it still wields in Westminster, particularly on the Conservative benches.
Former party chairman Brandon Lewis told me this week that “the Telegraph sits at the heartbeat of many, many Conservative members and supporters across the country”.
In a general election year that could end with a leadership contest, that gives it and its owners leverage, and the intense lobbying over its future proves the point.
Be the first to get Breaking News
Install the Sky News app for free
Even were Labour to win power, the Telegraph editor and their boss can expect to be on the receiving end of a charm offensive from the new government.
It is this access to power that can make even emphatic advocates of press freedom cynical.
From Lord Beaverbrook to Murdoch via Robert Maxwell, the history of the British press is a story of all-powerful proprietors, not one of whom ever admitted telling journalists what to print.
But the influence they wielded means for some, when it comes to independence and transparency in the British press, the horse has long bolted.
