Wednesday 25 February 2009

David Cameron's 6-year-old son dies

The British opposition leader David Cameron's six-year-old son has died this morning at St Mary's Hospital, located in Paddington, London, the BBC News Website has reported today.

Cameron's six-year-old son Ivan Cameron, suffered of cerebral palsy and epilepsy. 

Many people have sent their condolences to Mr. Cameron. Among them was the British PM - Gordon Brown - who have said (the BBC News Channel has reported today): " I know that in an all too brief life, he (Ivan) brought joy to all those around him and I know also for all the days of his life, he was surrounded by his family's love."

I agree with Mr. Brown's statement when he said that nobody has to go through such a tragic event. Mr. Brown himself knows what it feels like to loose a child. In 2006 Mr. Brown's daughter - Jennifer Jane - died 10 days after she was born in 2002.

I sincerely send my condolences to Mr. Cameron and his family. This is a very sad time for the Cameron family and shows everyone - even such a strong politician like David Cameron - has to deal with personal issues and family problems. 

The picture used for this article was taken from www.bbc.co.uk/news

BBC News article used to write this article:

David Cameron's profile (Wikipedia):

Is Rupert Murdoch - sky's owner - a racist?

Rupert Murdoch, the world's biggest media baron, has apologised yesterday for the cartoon published in one of his newspapers - the New York Post - last week, the BBC News Website reported today.

The Cartoon - scooped by the Guardian - shows a chimpanzee shot to dead by two - white - police officers, while one of them says: 'they'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.' 

Some people from the African-American communities in the US have reacted angrily declaring that the New York Post promotes racism in America. They've declared that the shot-chimpanzee reflects the image the white Americans had of the African-Americans during times of slavery. 

I seriously believe that Mr. Murdoch is not a racist, and I don't say this because I like him -because I don't, I believe he uses his media power to obtain what he wants, which is an abuse o media power. 

It is not a secret for those involved in the media industry that Rupert Murdoch would do everything, and would become friends with anyone just to expand his media empire and to increase his influences worldwide. 

In this case, it only took him to ordered his New York Post cartoonist to draw a racist cartoon to be in the spotlight once again.

The images used for this article were taken from www.bbc.co.uk/news and www.guardian.co.uk

BBC News article used to write this story:

Guardian article used to write this story:

New York Post website:

New York Post profile (Wikipedia):

Rupert Murdoch's profile (Wikipedia):

Friday 20 February 2009

Former Telegraph Editor to move to the Evening Standard in an attempt to improve the newspaper

Former editor of the Sunday Telegraph Sara Sands will become the Evening Standard's deputy editor and will begin this Sunday, the Media Guardian has reported today.

Sara Sands has been offered the position of Deputy Editor in the London Evening Standard by the new owner of the newspaper Alexander Lebedev and the newspaper's new editor-in-chief Geordie Greig.

The Guardian reported today: "Sara is one of the most dynamic and motivating editors with a track record of creating lively, must-read journalism," said Greig. Deputy editor Andrew Bordiss remains in this role."

London's most notorious newspaper - the Evening Standard - was bought by Alexander Lebedev from the Daily Mail and General Trust last month. Mr. Lebedev already owns the Moscow based newspaper Novaya Gazeta.

This move has been made by the new Standard owner in an attempt to improve the quality of the paper and to regain the readers that it has lost over the years.

It is not a secret that while the Standard was in the hands of the Daily Mail the Standard's number of readers started to decrease and one believes that is the real reason why the newspaper was sold, because the Daily Mail was no longer earning the profits they used to from that newspaper.

The Evening Standard has for a long time been believed to be the voice of London and many believed that if it were ever to belonged to a foreigner, it would have lost its theme and its readers totally.

But the reality is that Mr. Lebedev has ink in his veins and he knows what London needs during this era of tabloid journalism. It is fair to say that Mr. Lebedev owns a broadsheet newspaper in a country - Russia - that has been polluted with tabloid newspapers.

I don't believe that Mr. Lebedev is trying to maximize the profit of the Standard because if he did, the newspaper would be a tabloid by now. I believe that the only thing Mr. Lebedev is trying to do to it is improve the theme of the newspaper for the better. That is why he's made so many changes to the newspaper already.

The pictures used for this article were taken from:

Guardian article used to write this story:

Sara Sand's profile (Wikipedia):

Alexander Lebedev's profile (Wikipedia):

Evening Standard's profile (Wikipedia):

Novaya Gazeta's profile (Wikipedia):

Thursday 19 February 2009

Anna Politkovskaya - the Russian anit-government journalist killed in 2006 - case doesn't seem to be going anywhere!



Four people have been accused for the murder of the anti-government journalist Anna Politkovskaya of the Moscow based newspaper the Novaya Gazeta, the Guardian has reported today.

According to the Guardian, the four men accused for the murder of Anna Politkovskaya are believed to be two Chechen brothers named Dzhabrail and Ibragim Makhmudov, A former Moscow policeman - who has been accused of corruption before by the Russian authorities but has never been prosecuted - Sergi Khadzhikurbanov and a lieutenant colonel of the Russian FSB Spy Agency, Pavel Ryaguzov.

The tragic death of Anna Politkovskaya occurred while the famous journalist was coming back to her Moscow flat from a day of shopping at about 16:00 on 7 oct 2006. She's believed to have left her bags upstairs and took the lift downstairs where - as the lift doors oppened - she was surprised by a then unidentified murderer and was shot in the chest and the head. The murderer left the pistol in the crime scene.

During the investigation some crucial pieces of evidence such as a mobile phone SIM card, some computer discs and some photos disappeared, the Guardian has reported today.

This is obviously one of the most scandalous cases in modern Russian History, and it is very clear that this murder has nothing to do with the fact that Ms. Politkovskaya owned some money to non-reliable sources as some Russian newspapers have reported. This is clearly the act of an angry politician who wanted to get rid of Anna Politkovskaya before she accuse - with proves on her hands, as she used to do - the government of any wrong doing.

All the people involved in this murder are or have been involved in the Russian government, which can only lead us to the conclusion that only someone in the government could have given the orders to kill the famous reporter.

It is not a secret that most of the corrupt Russian politicians feared Mr. Politkovskaya because she unveiled some of the most polemic Russian crimes made by the Russian Government.

She often accused Putin of many criminal acts made made by government people during the time he was in power. It is not a secret that Mr. Putin - Russia's former president - hated everything that had to do with Anna Politkovskaya and the newspaper she wrote for, the Navaya Gazeta.

Will this case ever be solved? I believe the killers will be imprisoned, but the real mastermind responsible for Anna Politkovskaya's death will never be identified.

The pictures used for this article were taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/

Guardian article used to write this story:

Related Guardian article:

Anna Politkovskaya's profile (Wikipedia):

Wednesday 18 February 2009

FaceBook now has the right to do whatever they want to do with our data - Does it really matter though?












FaceBook, one of the most famous websites in the world - with "175 million users worldwide" according to the Guardian - have earned the right to hold all the pictures and personal data that their users upload on the famous and controversial website.

And even if the users later removed their information and pictures from the website, facebook would be able to hold copies of your pictures and personal information.  

This has been the big story of many newspapers worldwide. It just seems that people are suddenly very concerned about their personal data and the pictures that they willingly upload on facebook. But why?

One answer would have something to do with the fact that facebook is one of those websites that people can't live if they don't go on at least once a day. Don't get me wrong, I like facebook. It's a very useful communicative tool that has brought everyone together and has made the world a smaller place. However, at the same time, it's one of those websites that would do everything to suck your money up from your pockets. But how?

Facebook is believed to have wanted to sell personal data to private companies that make their living from selling stuff in the internet, which would eventually allowed these companies to know what your interests are and then make it easier for them to target you and sell you the stuff that you like and that they want you to buy. Now, you might think, well, how's this a bad thing?

To be quit honest it doesn't sound like a bad thing, but when you think of all the chunk stuff that's gonna be sent to you, taking into consideration that it might all be extremely unnecessary but at the same time you'd buy simply because you like it, the issue becomes a problem. Because trust me, there's is certain stuff out there that people love and even if they don't have enough money to eat for a week, they'd do the impossible to get they little thing that fulfils their eyes. 

Now what does that have to do the our pictures and personal data? Some might believe that it has something to do with the famous war-on-terror, and it might be true, but the real deal is that if a boss of yours of someone who would like to know something personal about you, would just pay a huge amount of money to facebook only to know what you said to your partner three years ago before you broke up with him/her, or what you said about someone who works with you, or just to see the pictures of the time when during prome party back at the end of high school got completely drunk and ruined the party.

And why would someone be interested in that? Well, let's say that you're looking for a job and your would-be boss needs some personal information about you - info that you obviously wouldn't tell him/her during a job interview - he/she can just simple contact the big facebook enterprise and ask them about your personal life. Now to me that's scary. 

That's right people, you should fear facebook because it isn't only taking time from you but it's also going to become your BIG BRO...

The picture used for this article was taken from www.guardian.co.uk

Guardian article used to write this story:

Facebook profile (Wikipedia):

FaceBook website:

Sunday 15 February 2009

Venezuelans go to Vote Once Again Today for the 15th Time in 10 Years - Since President Hugo Chavez has Gotten to Power




Tens of thousands of Venezuelans will go to vote today as the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, once again tries to legalise unlimited-presidency-terms through a new referendum.

Currently a president's terms in Venezuela lasts seven years, due to the changes that Mr. Chavez made to the constitution a few months after he got to power in 1999. This is the third time Mr. Chavez tries to change the electoral terms.

Mr. Chavez is a very controversial president. He's recently celebrated his 10-years in power and has made that date a national holiday. He's also made many changes in the constitution and regional laws in his now 10-year-long-term. 

Mr. Chavez still has a remaining time of four years in power, but is very confident and persistent that this time he will win.

But what happens in Venezuela is more complex than it looks like. The president extraordinarily popular among the poor communities due to the increase of help-care and education Mr. Chavez has provided them with. 

On the other hand, business people and higher classes have stopped supporting the president because of the way he's been using private and public business in Venezuela for his own purposes. Venezuela's biggest oil company would be an example.

Mr. Chavez fired more than 20,000 oil workers (from highly-paid engineers to minimum-wage workers, all qualifies to do their jobs) of the then third biggest and most influential oil company in the world, Venezuelan PDVSA for protesting in what was the country's biggest strike in history. This happened in 2002 and since then PDVSA has declined from the third biggest oil company in the world to the fifth due to the unqualified personnel the Mr. Chavez has hired. 

Another industry that isn't very supportive towards President Chavez is the media. President Chavez has since gotten to power 10 years ago closed the most popular and oldest Venezuelan TV station RCTV, and at least three newspapers because of their anti-government policies. 

President Hugo Chavez is with no doubt a very polemic person. He's called former US president George W Bush by many names, including a "devil" while a speech in the UN back in 2007. 

But what makes this controversial South American president - loved by many and hated by many others - so different from other presidents? Mr. Chavez has created a anti-America "socialist-revolution" among many countries in South American and the world.

The fact that Mr. Chavez has created a link between countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Cuba and other countries around the world like Iran, and Soudi Arabia - all of which do not totally agree with American-foreign policies - make President Chavez a legend, because no other president in the world has managed to go against a US president with such confidence before. 

But according to many Mr. Chavez's intentions are not honest. Mr. Chavez has expelled many embassies in Caracas (the capital of Venezuela). Among them is the American embassy and the latest Israeli embassy, which according to Venezuelan officials was expelled because Mr. Chavez disliked the way the government of Israel attacked the Gaza Strip a few weeks ago.

Mr. Chavez has a change to win. Many of Mr. Chavez's supporters believe in him and will vote for him just to keep obtaining the loans that Mr. Chavez has provided them with. But many others like university students, the opposition media and thousands of mid-class workers no longer believe in the president.

Images taken from www.bbc.co.uk/news 

Guardian Related article:

BBC News related article:

New York Times related article:

Chavez's profile (Wikipedia):

Venezuela's profile:

Friday 13 February 2009

BRITAIN'S YOUNGEST TEENAGE-FATHER!
























Alfie Patten - 13, is the newest British teenager to have a baby. The now youngest British Teenager conceived his child last year with his 15-year-old girlfriend - now partner and mother of his baby, Chantelle Steadman.

The couple will be economically helped by their parents, the Sun has reported in an exclusive today.

13-year-old father Alfie Patten told the Sun today that he wants to be a good father, and that he doesn't know how much nappies cost. Mr. Patten told the Sun today "My dad sometimes gives me £10."

The couple decided to not have an abortion when the 15-year-old teenager Chantelle Steadman was found pregnant. 

This is with no doubt one of the most shocking stories in the newspapers, and I believe it will stay in the spot light for a while. The reason? Here we see two teenagers, one 13-year-old boy that looks like an eight-year-old, and a 15-year-old girl who looks like a 20-year-old, both having a baby together. It obviously shows that there is something wrong with our society, and with the way parents and schools teach children. But what might it be?

Some experts believe it might be the way parents are educating children about sex. An expert on sex education interviewed by the BBC News channel mentioned today that the sex-educational-system in Britain is failing because children are being told that they have to be protected (wear a condom) while having sex, rather than telling them that relationships don't always have to involve sex, specially at such a young age. 

However, this story has not only concerned parents, even the opposition leader - David Cameron has said to the BBC News Channel that it is worrying seeing two children having children, and that they should not be living this experience now.

So what can be done to stop children from having children? I agree with the fact that instead of telling children that they need to wear a condom before they have sex, parents must tell them that sex is something serious and that it should not be done until they (children) are totally ready for it, meaning having the right age.

A good way of doing this would be by showing them all the responsibilities that they take when they have a child. 

The images used for this article were taken from www.thesun.co.uk

Sun article used to write this story:

Thursday 12 February 2009

Foxy Knoxy's lawyer might need psychological help after accusations made by American & Italian press, BCC has reported

Foxy Knoxy has been in the spot-light once again as it has been reported by the BBC News Website yesterday that Knox's lawyer, Giuliano Mignini, has been accused by an American newspaper of trying to clean his reputation by using Know's case. 

The Italian press has as well criticised Mr. Mignini for supporting the non-famous American (Knox) and has also accused him of needing a psychologist in other occasions. 

The BBC reported yesterday - "The report event quoted unnamed supporters as alleging that Mignini is 'using the high-profile Amanda Knox case to improve his dicey reputation as further his career'." 

Mr Mignini's told the press yesterday - "I am quite a healthy man. I don't go to the doctor much and I have never visited a psychologist" The BBC has reported. 

Mr. Mignini is also believed to be preparing himself to take action against those newspapers who have accused him of having a mental illness and of other charges such as corruption inside Knox case.

What makes Foxy Knoxy case such an extraordinary piece of journalism in the American, Italian and British press is the fact that this is a crime case that has nothing to do with Italians, it is a total foreign crime that took place in a foreign country. 

Knox is believed to be guilty by both the Italian and American press because of the personality of Ms. Know, rather than by the proves collected for this case. 

I remember talking to my Italian friends about this case when I lived in Italy, and I remember them saying: Oh, I think she's guilty! When I asked them why, most of them would replied: I just don't like her.

Knox has been the target of British press as well. Such is the case of the Daily Mail, newspaper that has published an article (some time ago) showing possible (not accurate) reasons why Ms. Knox is (apparently, according to the Daily Mail) guilty of Kercher's murder. 

The article has pictures of Ms. Knox doing naughty things like standing in front of a Dutch Coffee Shop. Ironically the picture was posted in FaceBook by the very own Knox. The Daily Mail claimed that Knox who a comment on the picture saying "weed" meaning marijuana. 

So what is Knox smoked some weed? Does that make her guilty? Last time I checked my dictionary the definition of justice said that a person is only guilty of something just is a court-of-law declares so.

I guess we just have to wait until the Italian Authorities to decide whether Knox is guilty or not, and as long as Knox is not declared as guilty, she will remain innocent, no matter if she's smoked marijuana. That doesn't make her guilty of murder. 

The images used for this article where taken from www.bbc.co.uk/news

BBC News article used to write this story:

Foxy Knoxy's trial details (Wikipedia):

Wednesday 11 February 2009

Anti-Islam Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders ban from entering the UK





Dutch parliamentarian and anti-islam film maker Geert Wilders has been ban by British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith from entering the UK today Feb 12, 2009. The reason for such an extreme decision is believed to have been taken because Mr. Wilders wanted to broadcast his anti-islam film in the House of Lords, and this obviously would have upset the UK muslim population and others who oppose Mr. Wilders' vision on foreign affairs. The Times Online reported.

The Daily Telegraph reported yesterday: It carried on that Miss Smith was "satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK".

It's a reality that Mr. Wilders isn't welcome in many places. In his own native country, the Netherlands, where there's a population of one million muslims (in a country where the population is only 16 million people) Mr. Wilders isn't liked by many. I remember talking to my Dutch friends when I lived in Holland, and most of them weren't happy with the position that Mr. Wilders takes, and even believed that Mr. Wilders is a bad image for the country. 

It is fair to highlight that Mr. Wilders live under 24-hour security, and he keeps his security wherever he goes, even outside Europe. 

I believe that it would be a mistake to let Mr. Wilders enter the UK not because of his views on Islam, but because he wants to involve the UK in his anti-islam mission by broadcasting his anti-islam movie Fitna in the House of Lords.

It must be said that the UK has one of the highest muslim population in Europe, and it would not be fair to oppose to something that's totally legal. After all, we live in a free country where we all have the right to believe in whatever we want to believe as long as we don't endanger other people. 

Plus, not letting a member of the EU (even if that person is an EU parliamentarian) enter another EU country is totally legal, as long as the decision is taken by the right minister for the right purposes. 

The image used for this article was taken from www.timesonline.co.uk

Times Online article used to write this story:

Telegraph article used to write this story:

Geert Wilders profile (Wikipedia):

Why is the tabloid press so obsessed with Prince Harry?

Prince Harry has once again been caught making a racial joke, the Daily Mirror has reported today in their Website today. 

This time He is believed to have said "You don't sound like a black chap" to Stephen K Amos, during a comedy show celebration for Prince Charles' 60th birthday last Nov. 

It's fair to say that this isn't the first time Prince Harry is caught making racial jokes. 

Some weeks ago the Sun released a video of Prince Harry calling one of his army mates "little paki friend" and some years ago Prince Harry was caught dressed as a nazi in a night club in London. Now, do all of these comments Prince Harry make, make him a racist? I don't think so, and here's why.

Neither Mr. Amos nor Prince Harry's army friend felt insulted by his comments. Had they felt insulted by Prince Harry, they would have complained about His comments. 

Ironically for the tabloid press, Prince Harry's Asian army friend is believed to have said that in the army they all call each other by nicknames, and that he did not feel insulted by Prince Harry. Nor  did Mr Amos who just laughed at the joke and kept on having a good time.  

So why is the tabloid press accusing Prince Harry of being a racist? I believe this is just the perfect example of how tabloids twist our words for their purposes to make profits that only benefit themselves. They do it every time, and I believe that more than half the stuff we read in the tabloids isn't true. 

The image used for this article was taken from www.mirror.co.uk

Mirror article used to write this story:

Prince Harry's profile (Wikipedia):

Tuesday 10 February 2009

Australia PM defines the responsible for the bush fires as Mass Murderers-Arsonists



In the last five days Australian authorities have estimated a death rate of almost 230 people. It is believed that many other bodies are still to be identified, but because of the severe burns their identities will never be found. According to the Guardian 5,000 homes were devastated and according to the Daily Mail the temperature in the affected areas of Melbourne the temperature rose up to 50C. As many as 7000 are now homeless. This event is with no doubt one of the bloodiest fires in the history of Australia.  
 
But why are the Australian authorities saying that the bush fires are caused by men? Australia has a long history of bush fires. Every summer fires take control of the bushes and many loose their homes. Animals and civilization are constantly being affected by bush fires as the summer temperature rises each year. But why are these fires so much dangerous than the last ones?

One theory that the Australian Authorities might not want to take into consideration is the fact that global warming is affecting even the Australian countryside, and since this year the temperature rate has been estimated as one of the highest in the history of Australia, one can assume that these fires were caused by a rise of temperature. The higher the temperature the more devastating the fires might be.

I'm not saying that the Australian PM went too far by saying that the bush fires were caused by mass murderers, what I'm saying is that as far as the authorities don't have enough prove to incriminate anyone, it shouldn't be declared publicly. And even if the fires were caused by men, are they completely sure that it was not an accident?

We'll just have to wait until the investigations being led by the Australian police are over to determine whether the fires were caused by mass murderers or by normal people by accident. And until they don't have the key proves, they can't incriminate anyone. It is also fair to say that after a fire it is very hard to find key proves.

The images used for this article were taken from www.timesonline.co.uk and www.dailymail.co.uk

Daily Mail article used to write this story:

Times Online article used to write this story:

Guardian article used to write this story:

This post was created with the technical assistance of Warwick Gazard who has my thanks for his help.

Monday 9 February 2009

Jeremy Clarkson for PM! Wait, why?


Jeremy Clarkson is one of the most famous TV presenters in Britain. His TV programme Top Gear has brought him both fame and wealth and through it he’s managed to capture the hearts of many with his charisma and his politically incorrect comments. But for some reason, his jokes and comments have made people believe in him, up to a point when there’s even a facebook request to make him PM, and both the Times and the Sun, newspapers that he works for, have written an article about it. What is it about Jeremy Clarkson that drags us to like him so much, that we even dare to support him as the next British PM?

One of the most notable aspects of Jeremy is the fact that he is a very honest person. He doesn’t think twice when it comes to open his mouth and comment on something, not even if it is to crisis Australians, Americans or to call Gordon Brown “a one-eye idiot”. The more critical Clarkson becomes, the more people seem to like him!

Perhaps the fact that he’s so honest is what makes him so different from other politicians. Maybe, we’re just sick and tired of the lies and promises that politicians keep forgetting and breaking, and just maybe, Jeremy shows himself as someone different, as a change, as someone who although doesn’t always have right ideas, knows what people want and gives it to them. 

After all, all of his articles and TV programmes are made to provide British people with what they want. Plus, change seems to be in the air and Jeremy Clarkson could just be the British way of showing change to a people who seek for a solution. Just as the US brought a different person to office to make a change, Jeremy Clarkson could be that change for Britain.

But if he were ever to seriously run for office, would he have everything it takes to make a good PM? Would he ever be able to deal with a global economic crisis, climate changes, crimes in the streets, etc. Or would he just get rid of all the London buses and make people drive only racing cars, go on holidays whenever he wants, cut the drinking-age and cut the driving-age as he has mentioned in his Times and Sun Manifesto? To me, Jeremy Clarkson has to take things more seriously if he really wants to take such a big political position. However, if he did, we’d have one of the funniest and most dedicated PM Britain could ever have. 

Times Online article used to write this story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3137533.ece

The Sun: Clarkson's manifesto:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/columnists/clarkson/article679680.ece

Times Online: Clarkson's manifesto:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article3127320.ece

Jeremy Clarkson's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Clarkson

Jeremy Clarkson's website:

http://www.jeremyclarkson.co.uk/

Friday 6 February 2009

Snow?! Really?!

In the last five days, snow in London has been the theme of conversation for many people, and the theme of almost every national and local newspaper in Britain. From tabloids to broadsheets, they've all said something about it, but what is it that they're all missing? Are they saying all there is to say about the snow?

When it comes to snow, different newspapers have different prospectives, points of view, and they focus on different things. Such is the case of the Guardian, a left-wing newspaper that directed their articles to the educational effects of the snow on children. The Financial Times, focused on the huge economic impact that the closure of businesses in London due to the weather conditions had on Britain's economy in times of recession and the Sun, being the UK's biggest tabloid and having most of the UK newspaper readers, focused on the fun stuff that the snow brought to the citizens of London. Other newspapers such as the Daily Mail... Well, let's just say that they always manage to focus on the most negative prospective of every event. 

The Guardian's Tuesday edition states that London lost almost two billion pounds in business and that it would take some time until the city could go back to normal. The same Guardian's Wednesday edition was dedicated to the snow's effects on education, stating that more than 8,000 schools were partially closed and how this government's decision could affect children. The Guardian believes that by leaving children at home when the situations around them become a little harder, we're telling them to hide, lay back and relax when things become more difficult. Personally speaking, I don't wonder why people love to make every excuse not to go back to work during very minor situations. 

Ironically and taking into consideration that the Sun is one of the most sensational newspapers in Britain, to my point of view, it was the most honest newspapers of all. The Sun showed in their Tuesday front page two pictures, one of people waiting in line under the falling snow for a train that had no signals of showing up any time soon, and another picture of people playing and having fun in the snow. On top of these two united pictures was a very simple but funny headline that said - "The Good" written on top of the picture with the people having fun and "The Bad" written on top of the picture of the people waiting in line for a train under the snow. 

All of these newspapers did a good job on reporting the event as it happened and showing how some people were affected by the snow. The Guardian reported that: "In Yorkshire four teenagers were injured in a sledging accident at a country park. Two of them are believed to be badly when their makeshift sledge carried through two fences." 

However, none of these newspapers focused their articles or even mentioned anything about how to improve and equipped those cities that were affected by the snow with machinery personnel and the equipment necessary to prevent 8,000 schools from closing and London's financial structure from loosing almost two billion pounds when it snows back again. 

This week's snow storm isn't something that just happened because mother earth just felt like snowing today, or because it is something that happens every once in a while. We live in times of climate changes and it has been scientifically proved that in times of global warming, after the earth has gotten very hot, it tries to cool itself by minimizing the temperature, and this could sometimes cause a glacial era.  

I'm not saying that London is going to freeze and that we're all going to die because of the cold weather, what I'm saying is that what we experienced this week was just a warning of what can happen later on, in a not-far-away future. I'm extremely confident that we were just lucky to only experienced one day of snow. What would have happened if it had snowed for a whole week? How many schools would have been closed and for how long? How much money would have London lost in this time of recession? Would all this have done any good to Britain now that we're passing through a global economic crisis? I don't think so.

Of course we can't prevent the snow from falling, and sometimes it is very hard to predict when it is exactly going to fall again, but what we can do is prepare ourselves, and prepare our cities so that we don't have to suffer that much when this kinds of climate changes happen again.

And this is what journalists should have said, and what newspapers should have focused on: The government should make an investment to provide the city of London, and all of those cities affected by the snow with machinery and personnel to prevent further economic losses and schools from closing. 

The images used for this article were taken from www.dailymail.co.uk and www.thesun.co.uk

Sun article used to write this story:

Daily Mail article used to write this story: