UK: David Cameron launches immigration crackdown

All newspapers do that though.  I mean they can't type the story in 2.5 milliseconds to have it on the web.

I accept that newspapers will have 2 stories ready to go based upon the outcome, what I object to is how these stories made reference to the reactions of people - the false "guilty" story that went on the Daily Mail website stated that "Amanda Knox looked devastated", that is a blatent lie. Newspapers don't care about facts.

Whilst the Mail and the rest of the "rags" may have strong opinions, they are opinions that represent the majority. The  Guardian in contrast, which seems the paper of choice for many on this site,  is hardly read in the wider community  apart from the handwringing  liberal fraternity, and the lefty community who believe it is our duty to carry colonial guilt with us wherever we go. Fortunately for the country this type of thinking is slowly being marginalised, and consigned to the student debating society where it escaped from.

Well all I can say is that if the Mail represents the majority then god help us! 

Daily Mail circulation: 2,136,568 (The Sun at 3M is the #1)
Guardian circulation: 279,308

I understand that they have to prepare articles ahead of time, but when they accidentally let fly an item that includes the look on her face and her family's reaction...that's outside the bounds, IMO.

I agree, but isn't the type of thing you would write in a story ahead of time?  Of course they are going to look upset at the appeal being denied. 

The BBC translator was much, much better.

Don't believe everything you read in any newspaper -- or see on TV.  ABC News had an item on the Occupiers and said the dustup with police in Boston was over the protesters taking over a bridge and blocking traffic. Not so. They had moved on to a portion of the Greenway against police orders and were removed.