How did U.S. newspapers cover the attacks in London? Some were good, but a lot were bad. Really, really bad.
Links to Newseum front-page images are accurate on Friday only.Rapid City, S.D.: BRITS 'RESILIANT' -- I guess they were so scared that they forgot to run spell-check.
Staunton, Va.: AREA WOMEN NEARLY FACE TERROR: Pair planned to see the sights in London just after bombings -- right out of The Onion.
Syracuse, N.Y.: LONDON TERROR ATTACKS MAKE WORLD WONDER... (3-inch letters) WHO'S NEXT? -- singled out for special fear-mongering.
Madison, Wis.: LONDON AT A STANDSTILL -- just plain wrong.
Lawrence, Kan.: LONDON REELING AFTER TERROR BLITZ -- highly unfortunate choice of words.
McAllen, Texas: TERRORISTS BLITZ LONDON -- even more unfortunate.
Colorado Springs, Colo.:TERROR'S NEW TARGET -- because London has never been terrorized before.
San Jose, Calif.: DEADLY ATTACKS: CAN WE BE SAFE? -- A newspaper this large really should know better.
Billings, Mont.: LONDON ATTACKS LINKED TO AL-QAIDA -- Not authoritatively; just plain wrong.
And perhaps my favorite:
Terre Haute, Ind.: TERROR ATTACKS STRIKE LONDON ... Terre Haute bus drivers keeping closer watch on passengers.
To see more, go to
http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/flash