Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Are the two Eds Attlee and Cripps – or Tory clones? (Daily Telegraph)

Miliband and Balls have sown confusion among Conservative opponents with their new economic approach, writes Mary Riddell.

2. Careless talk may cost the economy (Financial Times)

If the Fed had been more prudent, premature tightening might have been avoided, writes Martin Wolf.

3. Osborne must stick to his Scalextric model (Times

Any politician can talk big, but successful ministers don’t always speed to the finish line, writes Daniel Finkelstein. They plot a steady course.

4. Don't expect James Bond to act like Mother Teresa (Guardian)

Handing our personal data to the US Prism project is exactly how you'd expect our spies to behave, writes David Davis. That's why they need strict legal controls.

5. Egyptians must not let their country descend into chaos (Guardian)

President Morsi has made mistakes – but Egypt's opposition, by aligning with former regime members, is sidelining democracy, says Wadah Khanfar.

6. The old deserve every penny of their pensions (Times

Let’s avoid a battle of the generations, says Alice Thomson. Britain’s oldest citizens led much harder lives than today’s young.

7. Politicians who demand inquiries should be taken out and shot (Guardian)

From Stephen Lawrence to Bloody Sunday, an inquiry serves as the establishment's get out of jail free card, writes Simon Jenkins. 

8. The rest of us work when needed. Why can't the bolshy doctors' union grasp that? (Daily Mail)

For two decades, doctors have provided ever less effective out-of-hours cover, says Max Hastings. 

9. QE was fun while it lasted. Now it’s time for the cuts (Independent)

It's time to set out on the road back to monetary sustainability - and it's not going to be easy, says Hamish McRae.

10. Nice Sir Mervyn King still allowed the ship to crash (Daily Telegraph)

Despite the plaudits, the Governor of the Bank of England's economic theories were hopelessly misguided, says Iain Martin.
 
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.