Here is how the Guardian website treated a recent news item.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/10/two-arrested-army-protest-luton

Here is how the BBC website treated the same story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/beds/bucks/herts/7935049.stm

From the Daily Telegraph website

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/4972211/Muslim-protest-at-Luton-Army-parade-was-upsetting-says-senior-officer.html

and

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/4991313/Lutons-Muslim-extremists-defy-public-anger.html

and

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4975163/Stop-pandering-to-enemies-of-our-way-of-life.html

The Sun had this to say

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/article2314309.ece

Here is Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508686,00.html

The inevitable youtube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_ygCc9qlWM

Here's Andrew Bolt

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/killers_for_their_god/

And, finally, here is what the British National Party website has to say n the matter,

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/03/muslim%E2%80%99s-luton-anti-army-protest-%E2%80%9Cportent-of-things-to-come%E2%80%9D/

Which, if any, of this reportage best captures the essence of the event and, most importantly, its CONTEXT? Is it even possible to say?

Steven,
More Muslim hating madness. More indirect uber pro israeli bumf. What a waste of time all that effort researching for what is 20th rate story in England about a few hysterical protesters that realistically deserved to be ignored.
We're in Australia who cares what a piddling minority of anti war protesters did in England.
Have you heard of freedom of speech?
The last report is pure toxic spin (Nationalist fear mongering the editorializing was neither accurate or objective).
PS newspapers/media are generally for entertanment/profit...be it on your head if you believe their spin.

I'm not entirely sure what is your question, stevenlmeyer.

>>Which, if any, of this reportage best captures the essence of the event and, most importantly, its CONTEXT? Is it even possible to say?<<

The answer is, if I have interpreted you correctly, "all of them".

Each comes from a different perspective, and each provides a different set of quotations from key observers.

The Guardian, generally regarded as left-of-centre, includes this little gem.

"Shahid Malik, the justice minister, said... these extremists in Luton no more represent ordinary Muslims than the Real IRA represent ordinary Irish people<<

Nice summary, especially given the actual size of the protest.

And at the other extreme-right end of the spectrum, the organ of the BNP, has this to say.

"...we cannot help but think of what would happen to British nationals who would insult a Pakistani army parade in Lahore in this manner; they would be lynched,”

Another very astute observation, underlining the fundamental right to free speech that the British hold dear. The fact that he is probably close to the truth illustrates the tolerance that is a critical component of any decent civilization.

But so what? Every news item is filtered through the lens of the medium. I am pretty sure that the reporting of the same incident by the Lahore Chronicle would add another angle.

It simply illustrates that there is no longer a "newspaper of record". All we have available to us is editorial opinion, using current events as a vehicle.

Why would anyone bother reading all those?.

You kinda have to sell the urge to read them.

I'm reminded of the old fable about the blind men and the elephant.

Dear Steven,

Well you've certainly illustrated beautifully
just how successful the manipulation of an
event by the media can be. The power to instill
fear - that was out of proportion to the real
numbers or strength. The last website you gave
was really over the top - "portent of things to
come..." My, my.

I guess if I had to select one report out of all
of the ones you gave - it would be the one cited
at the beginning of your post - by The Guardian.
The content seemed the least biased and emotive.

I wonder if the same occurs here in Australia?
I've not done an inquiry to compare the reporting
on any given story here. I'll have to give it a
go.

Thanks. Interesting thread. Actually an eye-opener.
Makes you think twice about the effect slanted reporting
has on people doesn't it? Some subtle, some not so
subtle. It all depends where the emphasis is placed.
And the right buttons are pushed.
Emotions certainly could be stirred up - especially
in a vulnerable city with its mix of problems...