" 

 I had to pop out there briefly and so had to shorten my last post. What I had in mind was that, during the 68-day hunger strike, Barry Horne became just about the most hated person in the UK, particularly toward the end of it. There wasn't a single positive or neutral article about him in the mainstream press: in fact, I don't recall such uniformly POV journalism about any other subject. It wasn't just the Telegraph, but the Guardian and Observer too. The Independent was slightly better but not much, and the tabloids were dreadful. Then there was the Channel 4 documentary entrapping Robin Webb, and all this was before ARM issued its death threat, at which point the press went wild, and Newsnight etc got involved. And they were all calling it terrorism (undefined as usual). The overseas press wasn't much better, though Sweden was slightly more sympathetic. Therefore, whether we agree or not, that was very much the majority view of him and ought to be reflected in the intro (though I take your point about the property-only aim of his campaign). The other thing I like about that quote is that it's pure drama, and therefore might encourage the reader to read on, which is part of the point of an intro. So that was my reasoning: not wanting WP to label him, but wanting to show that others did, and in choosing the Guardian, I felt I was choosing a newspaper that might have been expected to reflect a more nuanced position, but it didn't, and that tells us something, not about Horne, but about people's view of this kind of activity.   "