Tanya Gold's take on the royal family's ability to project an impression of thrift while spending vast sums of public money is, in my humble republican opinion, the most entertaining published response to the appeal court's ruling that Prince Charles's correspondence with Tony Blair's cabinet should be published. The Guardian's leader on the topic of the so-called 'black spider' memos is also a stimulating read. I suspect the attorney general has a real fight on his hands. His argument appears to be that we must not know what Prince Charles's most passionate political opinions are because he is not supposed to have political opinions, and that his correspondence must therefore be suppressed because it might compromise the public's impression of his political neutrality. Convoluted or simply deluded? You choose.
For four years, the media have swarmed around the trials and appeals linked to the murder of Meredith Kercher, and at perhaps the most crucial moment to date - the verdict of the appeals of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito - several news organisations managed to get it completely wrong.
The Sun, the Guardian and Sky News all jumped the gun, reporting that Knox had lost her appeal when in fact, the court announced that it had found her guilty of a different offence.
Meanwhile, The Daily Mail published an entire article on their website about how Knox and Sollecito had lost their appeals, describing their reactions and even including 'quotes' from prosecutors.
The Press Gazette has detailed the whole saga here:
But, we can all learn a valuable lesson from this - a lesson which, really, we should know already: While being the first to report a story is admirable and a goal we should all aim to achieve, it is always, always, always more important to get the story right.