Quote:
|
Originally Posted by towny
<Snip>Yesterday's fromt page lead in the Guardian, which (like the BBC) sought to talk up the possibility of mass protest at every possible opportunity, strayed beyond factual journalism and well into leader-writing territory, yet it was presented as a straight news story.
|
I would beg to differ on this. I've just re-read yesterday's article. On my reading, it was mainly a factual account, peppered with a few mildly sarcastic comments. It didn't support the visit, but it definitely didn't encourage protests.
Para 1 said "controversial visit". This is factually correct.
Para 2 said "700-strong entourage worthy of a travelling medieval monarch" in the middle of a factual description of his arrival.
Para 3 said "With up to 100,000 anti-war protestors planning . . . Downing Street maintained a stiff upper lip". A reasonable guess. The rest of para was neutral and was only supportive in that terms such as "renta-mob" were not used.
The next 10 or so paras reported, without any slant, comments made by British and US government spokesmen, discussed the Gaurdian poll that showed pro-American support and discussed possible topics for the Blair-Bush talks; again all factual matters, all presented in an unbiassed fashion.
There was a paragraph discussing the probable make-up of the protestors and a statement from Ken Livingstone calling for any protests to be kept peaceful and warning about the costs.