Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. Could Cameron be a bit frit about facing Miliband in TV debates? (Observer)

David Cameron's cold feet about televised leaders' debates suggest a new respect for his Labour opposite number, writes Andrew Rawnsley.

2. America: Too many guns, too little will to change (Independent on Sunday)

Newtown, Connecticut, joins a rollcall of towns whose names become synonymous with violent death, writes Rupert Cornwell. The President has a fight on his hands.

3. American fantasies that lead to massacre (Sunday Times) (£)

The ideal of guns as self-protection owes little to evidence and much to cultural fears, writes David Frum.

4. Where does Danny Boyle’s Britain go from here? (Sunday Telegraph)

We inhabit a pluralistic society – and identifying the common ground is the most pressing challenge for the 21st-century politician, says Matthew d'Ancona.

5. The coalition's in good cheer - so the hangover will be terrible (Mail on Sunday)

The subject on which Cameron and Clegg most disagree - Europe - cannot be avoided much longer, says James Forsyth.

6. Secular Britain is ruled by religious bureaucrats (Observer)

Why is the church still such a force in our society when most of us disregard its clerics' teachings, asks Nick Cohen.

7. Is Scotland in Europe? The SNP doesn’t even know (Sunday Telegraph)

The Scottish Nationalist Party is offering us a one-way ticket to a deeply uncertain future, says Alistair Darling.

8. Clegg has a mind-altering plan for power (Independent on Sunday)

The Liberal Democrat leader has to look for what he might call niche demographics – on an industrial scale, writes John Rentoul.

9. What a week that was for idiotic politics (Sunday Telegraph)

The commitment to gay marriage is seen as some sort of analogue with the Blairite renunciation of Labour’s Clause Four, writes Janet Daley.

10. Never has London seemed more like a city state apart (Observer)

The census suggests a huge gap between the lives and concerns of Londoners and their fellow Britons, says Catherine Bennett.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.