Anniversaries are a good time to celebrate achievements and reflect on mistakes. For its 50th anniversary today, The Australian is awash with the former and starved of the latter.

The “50 years in 50 days” series the newspaper has been publishing daily leading up to today's anniversary date has recounted, among many topics, the boldness of Rupert Murdoch’s original decision to launch The Australian, the forging of a national approach to covering news and culture and the long struggles to make the newspaper financially viable. There is undoubtedly a great deal to celebrate in the newspaper’s history;  just as The Australian claims the right to scrutinise society rigorously, however, so it too should be scrutinised. The problem is that in recent years The Australian has proved itself extraordinarily thin-skinned in dealing with criticism. The newspaper devoted close to twice as many words excoriating Robert Manne as he had written in his 2011 Quarterly EssayBad News: Murdoch’s Australian and the shaping of the nation”. The newspaper deploys four main weapons against critics: first, it unleashes a torrent of articles contesting even of the tiniest points, so as to wipe the critic’s original point from everyone’s mind; second, it attacks the critic personally and pitilessly; third -- somewhat paradoxically -- it ignores the critic; and fourth, when all else fails, it simply continues asserting something as true as if no one has ever shown it was false. In the latest issue of The Monthly, Margaret Simons, the director of Melbourne University’s Centre for Advancing Journalism, urged media commentators to stop talking about The Australian because that only feeds what she terms its narcissistic impulses. She swiftly earned herself schoolyard sarcasm from the newspaper’s Cut and Paste section and finger-wagging from Gerard Henderson in The Weekend Australian. The Australian’s influential role in national affairs continues to merit discussion, but her point carries some weight. Has there ever been another Australian media outlet whose editor-in-chief, with a daily leader article and the services of hundreds of journalists at his disposal, feels the need to be quoted so frequently in his own newspaper? We compared the number of times Chris Mitchell’s name was mentioned in The Australian over the past two years to July 5 with the number of mentions of The Age’s editor, Andrew Holden, in his paper. It was not surprising to find that Mitchell was mentioned almost three times more often. And this was before yesterday's Media section interview, which was accompanied by five photographs of Mitchell.