This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/sep/08/drone-killing-of-reyaad-khan-didnt-papers-cover-that-two-months-ago
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Drone killing of Reyaad Khan? Didn't papers cover that two months ago? | Drone killing of Reyaad Khan? Didn't papers cover that two months ago? |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| Some people with good memories may have noted something odd about Tuesday’s coverage of the prime minister’s statement on the drone killing of Reyaad Khan. Had they not read that story somewhere before? | Some people with good memories may have noted something odd about Tuesday’s coverage of the prime minister’s statement on the drone killing of Reyaad Khan. Had they not read that story somewhere before? |
| Yes... and no. It is true that national newspapers reported on 21 July that Reyaad Khan had been killed in a drone strike. | Yes... and no. It is true that national newspapers reported on 21 July that Reyaad Khan had been killed in a drone strike. |
| But those reports, it appears, were incorrect. At the time it was evidently thought he had been the victim of a US drone attack. Hence this crop of headlines: Jihadist who wanted to be Britain’s first Asian PM ‘killed’ in drone strike (Daily Telegraph); British ISIS fighter who posed next to Ed Balls and dreamed of becoming the first Asian Prime Minister ‘is killed in drone strike’ (Daily Mail) Boy who wanted to be PM ‘has died on jihad in Syria’ (The Times) and Briton Reyaad Khan believed killed in air strike on Islamic State in Syria (The Guardian) among others. | But those reports, it appears, were incorrect. At the time it was evidently thought he had been the victim of a US drone attack. Hence this crop of headlines: Jihadist who wanted to be Britain’s first Asian PM ‘killed’ in drone strike (Daily Telegraph); British ISIS fighter who posed next to Ed Balls and dreamed of becoming the first Asian Prime Minister ‘is killed in drone strike’ (Daily Mail) Boy who wanted to be PM ‘has died on jihad in Syria’ (The Times) and Briton Reyaad Khan believed killed in air strike on Islamic State in Syria (The Guardian) among others. |
| Note the caution, evidenced by the use of quotation marks in citing three of those headlines and the Guardian’s reference to “believed”. | |
| In fact, so I am informed, Khan did not die on that occasion. David Cameron’s statement to MPs was unequivocal: “after meticulous planning” Khan was killed on 24 August by an RAF drone. | In fact, so I am informed, Khan did not die on that occasion. David Cameron’s statement to MPs was unequivocal: “after meticulous planning” Khan was killed on 24 August by an RAF drone. |
| Hence the crop of headlines They got what they deserved (Mail); MI5 foil plot to kill Queen (Daily Express); British jihadists in Syria killed by drones (Times); Cameron: I approved drone killing of UK jihadis in Syria (Guardian) and the Sun’s adulatory Wham! Bam! Thank you Cam. | Hence the crop of headlines They got what they deserved (Mail); MI5 foil plot to kill Queen (Daily Express); British jihadists in Syria killed by drones (Times); Cameron: I approved drone killing of UK jihadis in Syria (Guardian) and the Sun’s adulatory Wham! Bam! Thank you Cam. |
| Sure, it’s an amazing coincidence that could well fuel conspiracy theories, but I guess we’ll need to see this as a truth-stranger-than-fiction matter. | Sure, it’s an amazing coincidence that could well fuel conspiracy theories, but I guess we’ll need to see this as a truth-stranger-than-fiction matter. |
| I am surprised, however, that I could find no mention of the papers pointing to their previous errors. Surprised? No, you’re right, not really... | I am surprised, however, that I could find no mention of the papers pointing to their previous errors. Surprised? No, you’re right, not really... |