Yes, Phoenix, especially if one is a Luddite!
I'm 'reading' The Guardian daily - as well as The Independent (besides the Manchester Evening Post) as UK papers.
I don't think, you can label this/those papers -any European, btw, in my opinion - "liberal", when you refer to that in the American meaning of the word. (The Guardian is, IMHO, 'left-liberal' in the European sense.)
The article was printed in The Obsever, which is, so to say, the Guardian's Sunday issue.
The news wasn't mentioned a lot in Europe('s Monday papers) either, which may have various reasons. One may be that there are a lot of "internet news", which turned out to be false later.
It was mentioned with some sentences in regional papers here in Germany, but even Der Spiegel didn't have it (too late for the printed version, although).
I believe the limited coverage on the letter has more to do with the veracity of it's authenticity than anything else.
It sounds too much like what someone from Europe would think UBL might say.
Purely conjecture on my part, however.
I too read the Guardian, but don't tell my conservative friends!
maxsdadeo wrote: I too read the Guardian, but don't tell my conservative friends!
Ha! Caught ya max! You're going to get thrown out of thr club if ya keep that up! lol
Funny thing is that until yesterday, I NEVER read the Guardian. Got to it through another link!
The British press, for the most part, has been less inclined to suppress certain matters than the mainstream American press. There's no question our Fourth Estate has it's own agenda, but perhaps in this particular instance, it has declined to report simply because there has already been so much emphasis placed on this threat by the government.
As to the authenticity of the "letter", it pretty much covers the same ground as the bin Laden message published before 9/11, so I would assume it's reasonable to accept it at face value.
And what did you think of Guardian Unlimited, Phoenix?
How would you compare their coverage of the same events as US papers?
Curious.
Msolga- Actually, this was my first experience with The Guardian, but believe me, it will not be my last. I am concerned that the American media will report the happenings of any fifth rate terrorist, but did not print Bin Laden's letter. Curious!
There was a big thing a while back about broadcasting Osama videos. There was some kind of official agreement, I believe (I could probably find it with a Google search but am on my way out the door) that US news outlets NOT broadcast them, so as to not get messages to terrorist cells already in America. I can imagine that there would be similar reasoning behind this.
Be sure to take your anti-bonehead pills before you begin readin' The Guardian on a regular basis, Boss . . .
Well, only that The Guardian editorial staff is a somewhat to the right of Francisco Franco, politically speaking . . .
And why, do you think, Setanta, is The Guardian is generally labeled in Europeas:
"The Guardian is distinguished by its cosmopolitan views, its literary and artistic coverage and criticism, and its foreign correspondence. Owned by a trust and financially secure, the paper has always taken an independent liberalstance and was once called "Britain's non-conformist conscience." Its editorial excellence is generally credited to the 57-year tenure of Charles Prestwich Scott, which began in 1871, when the paper covered both the Prussian and the French sides in the Franco-German War. From time to time the paper has lost readers because it espoused unpopular causes, but it has always maintained an independent editorial policy and great breadth and depth of news coverage." ?
Well guys, I think that I will keep an open mind, and keep reading!
Phoenix
Have you checked out the Guardian's political cartoon section?
I haven't recently, but after November 11 they had a brilliant collection from newspaper around the world.
msolga- No, but I certainly will! This was my first contact with the Guardian.
