So what’s up with this?
Tuesday’s Sun front page – “Maggie dead in bed at Ritz” #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #Thatcher twitter.com/suttonnick/sta…
— Nick Sutton (@suttonnick) April 8, 2013
The Sun was always her biggest media pal. This is presumably a broadcast from Murdoch Central – the supposedly retired elder-statesman Trevor “I thought I scooped Hutton fair and square” Kavanagh suddenly has his byline back on the front page! – but the tone is weird.
Thatcher never projected herself as rich, even when she was, quite the opposite. So concentrating on the detail about the Ritz, probably still the symbol of ostentatious wealth most understood in the UK, is strange. I give you the following options:
1) They’ve forgotten, and they imagine this is impressive
2) They’re trying to be deliberately nasty, to put other pols on notice
3) They’ve lost the touch, and are just yesterday’s papers
I’m voting 3). Other opinions are sought.
“kills” is odd, too, in the side-heds: true, but weirdly blunt and relishful [comment cross-posted from twitter]
… since “ex-PM dies of stroke” would certainly fit the space
Yes, a curious tone. I am voting (3) too.
The Steve Bell is disappointing too
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-steve-bell-cartoon
vote 3, reflecting the readership’s view of the perfect and rightful setting for twilight years.
Tempted to vote for “none of the above – someone had the tune of Yankee Doodle on the brain”.
4) they’re deliberately trying to create resonance with another beloved woman who died near a Ritz.
Off topic, but I’d be really interested in your views on the privatisation of BT. My own view after living in various parts of Europe is that the state telecoms there managed the implementation of new exchange technology as well as BT (and said tech was the root of a lot of the improvements people cite for BT vs GPO) and that BT dragged it’s feet on internet matters for many years, putting us behind comparable countries with state telecoms companies (through the 90s – privatisation hit other countries as you get into the 2000s.)
“My own view after living in various parts of Europe is that the state telecoms there managed the implementation of new exchange technology as well as BT (and said tech was the root of a lot of the improvements people cite for BT vs GPO) and that BT dragged it’s feet on internet matters for many years, putting us behind comparable countries with state telecoms companies (through the 90s – privatisation hit other countries as you get into the 2000s.”
I might agree with you, but I’m struggling to understand your meaning. Could you rewrite this sentence, perhaps dividing it into shorter sentences. Thanks.