Recent coverage of the case of the anthrax tainted letters sent to senators and officials in 2001 has been baffling. When the story first broke, shortly after the attacks of September 11th, use of the word terrorism in connection to the case was widespread practise in the mainstream media. The so-called 'Amerithrax' case killed five people and injured seven others, and consisted of two waves of letters reading 'death to America, death to Isrel' and ending with the line 'Allah is great'.

I don't propose to answer this question myself, for fear of being either lynched by a baying mob of subs, or told to clear my desk by the men at the top...but here's a very interesting piece from the Independent on Sunday about London freesheet City AM's decision to axe its sub-editing staff.

For me the central issue is that raised by 'an insider':-

The Daily Telegraph reported yesterday that bloggers are in favour of a universal code of conduct being drawn up to govern conduct online.
It's a measure that comes too late in my opinion, for the unofficial rules have already been written: there are none.

As the story broke last night that Portuguese police were searching a house in connection with the disappearance of British toddle Madeleine McCann, i got a taste of how the rapidity of the news media

After weeks of rumour and rumblings at 111 Buckingham Palace Road, the Telegraph Media Group has finally launched My Telegraph, the latest a

A week on, and the fuss over the proposed Bloggers’ Code of Conduct seems to have died down.

A censor, according to the Oxford English dictionary, is somebody who expresses opinions on somebody else's morals and conduct or an official with power to suppress whole or parts of cultural output such as books or news on the grounds of, for example, obscenity or seditiousness. How antiquated that all sounds!