Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Cameron's speech on Europe makes it less likely he will be Prime Minister after the next election (Independent)

His position on Europe means that another coalition with the Lib Dems is impossible, says Steve Richards. Given the likelihood of another hung parliament, that spells danger for him.

2. Cameron may have finished off the Tories – but he had no choice (Daily Telegraph)

David Cameron's Conservative Party gamble over Europe has been tried before, by Labour. It fatally split the party, writes Peter Oborne.

3. By offering an in/out referendum, Cameron made Ukip stronger (Independent)

It is Ukip which will be leading the campaign for independence, says Nigel Farage.

4 Can Netanyahu survive Israel's middle-class revolt? (Guardian)

The election has given Israel a new kingmaker in Yair Lapid, writes Aluf Benn. But Binyamin Netanyahu is a master of survival.

5. From outside, it's clear why Britain has to stay in Europe (Guardian)

Cameron's speech could have been a lot worse, but five years of anxious uncertainty are bad news for Europe and the world, writes Timothy Garton Ash.

6. Davos: infotainment, not a conspiracy (Financial Times)

Most people here spend their days debating corporate social responsibility and the global economy, writes John Gapper. 

7. The speech of his life! And if the PM can follow through, he might just seal a historic triumph (Daily Mail)

Cameron fulfilled the foremost duty of a Prime Minister by articulating every anxiety felt by his people about Europe, says Max Hastings.

8. In-out EU referendum: Cameron's hokey-cokey (Guardian)

The real concern of  the PM's speech was not economics but politics – the politics of a restive Tory backbench, an insurgent Ukip and a mostly Europhobic press, says a Guardian editorial.

9. At last, voters are trusted to choose Britain’s future (Daily Telegraph)

David Cameron has given Britain a far better chance of securing a satisfactory settlement with the European Union, says a Telegraph editorial.

10. Our island must stop living in the Tudor past (Times) (£)

While we celebrate progress over Catholics and the succession we should also ask why we are so slow to change, says David Aaronovitch.

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.