Question: How many libel writs did The Sun get for their coverage of Elton John?

Eventually resulting in 17 libel writs in total, The Sun ran a series of false stories about the pop musician Elton John from 25 February 1987. They began with an invented account of the singer having sexual relationships with rent boys. The singer-songwriter was abroad on the day indicated in the story, as former Sun journalist John Blake, recently poached by the Daily Mirror, soon discovered. After further stories, in September 1987, The Sun accused John of having his Rottweiler guard dogs voice boxes surgically removed. In November, the Daily Mirror found their rival's only source for the rent boy story and he admitted it was a totally fictitious concoction created for money. The inaccurate story about his dogs, actually Alsatians, put pressure on The Sun, and John received £1 million in an out of court settlement, then the largest damages payment in British history. The Sun ran a front-page apology on 12 December 1988, under the banner headline "SORRY, ELTON". In May 1987 gay men were offered free one-way airline tickets to Norway to leave Britain for good: "Fly Away Gays - And We Will Pay" was the paper's headline. Gay Church of England clergymen were described in one headline in November 1987 as "Pulpit poofs".

Answer: 17

<hl> Eventually resulting in 17 libel writs in total, The Sun ran a series of false stories about the pop musician Elton John from 25 February 1987. <hl> They began with an invented account of the singer having sexual relationships with rent boys. The singer-songwriter was abroad on the day indicated in the story, as former Sun journalist John Blake, recently poached by the Daily Mirror, soon discovered. After further stories, in September 1987, The Sun accused John of having his Rottweiler guard dogs voice boxes surgically removed. In November, the Daily Mirror found their rival's only source for the rent boy story and he admitted it was a totally fictitious concoction created for money. The inaccurate story about his dogs, actually Alsatians, put pressure on The Sun, and John received £1 million in an out of court settlement, then the largest damages payment in British history. The Sun ran a front-page apology on 12 December 1988, under the banner headline "SORRY, ELTON". In May 1987 gay men were offered free one-way airline tickets to Norway to leave Britain for good: "Fly Away Gays - And We Will Pay" was the paper's headline. Gay Church of England clergymen were described in one headline in November 1987 as "Pulpit poofs".

Eventually resulting in <hl> 17 <hl> libel writs in total, The Sun ran a series of false stories about the pop musician Elton John from 25 February 1987. They began with an invented account of the singer having sexual relationships with rent boys. The singer-songwriter was abroad on the day indicated in the story, as former Sun journalist John Blake, recently poached by the Daily Mirror, soon discovered. After further stories, in September 1987, The Sun accused John of having his Rottweiler guard dogs voice boxes surgically removed. In November, the Daily Mirror found their rival's only source for the rent boy story and he admitted it was a totally fictitious concoction created for money. The inaccurate story about his dogs, actually Alsatians, put pressure on The Sun, and John received £1 million in an out of court settlement, then the largest damages payment in British history. The Sun ran a front-page apology on 12 December 1988, under the banner headline "SORRY, ELTON". In May 1987 gay men were offered free one-way airline tickets to Norway to leave Britain for good: "Fly Away Gays - And We Will Pay" was the paper's headline. Gay Church of England clergymen were described in one headline in November 1987 as "Pulpit poofs".


Question: Who did The Sun allege that Elton John had sex with?

Answer: rent boys

Eventually resulting in 17 libel writs in total, The Sun ran a series of false stories about the pop musician Elton John from 25 February 1987. <hl> They began with an invented account of the singer having sexual relationships with rent boys . <hl> The singer-songwriter was abroad on the day indicated in the story, as former Sun journalist John Blake, recently poached by the Daily Mirror, soon discovered. After further stories, in September 1987, The Sun accused John of having his Rottweiler guard dogs voice boxes surgically removed. In November, the Daily Mirror found their rival's only source for the rent boy story and he admitted it was a totally fictitious concoction created for money. The inaccurate story about his dogs, actually Alsatians, put pressure on The Sun, and John received £1 million in an out of court settlement, then the largest damages payment in British history. The Sun ran a front-page apology on 12 December 1988, under the banner headline "SORRY, ELTON". In May 1987 gay men were offered free one-way airline tickets to Norway to leave Britain for good: "Fly Away Gays - And We Will Pay" was the paper's headline. Gay Church of England clergymen were described in one headline in November 1987 as "Pulpit poofs".

Eventually resulting in 17 libel writs in total, The Sun ran a series of false stories about the pop musician Elton John from 25 February 1987. They began with an invented account of the singer having sexual relationships with <hl> rent boys <hl>. The singer-songwriter was abroad on the day indicated in the story, as former Sun journalist John Blake, recently poached by the Daily Mirror, soon discovered. After further stories, in September 1987, The Sun accused John of having his Rottweiler guard dogs voice boxes surgically removed. In November, the Daily Mirror found their rival's only source for the rent boy story and he admitted it was a totally fictitious concoction created for money. The inaccurate story about his dogs, actually Alsatians, put pressure on The Sun, and John received £1 million in an out of court settlement, then the largest damages payment in British history. The Sun ran a front-page apology on 12 December 1988, under the banner headline "SORRY, ELTON". In May 1987 gay men were offered free one-way airline tickets to Norway to leave Britain for good: "Fly Away Gays - And We Will Pay" was the paper's headline. Gay Church of England clergymen were described in one headline in November 1987 as "Pulpit poofs".

They began with an invented account of the singer having sexual relationships with <hl> rent boys <hl> .


Question: What journalist did The Daily Mirror wrest from The Sun?

Answer: John Blake

Eventually resulting in 17 libel writs in total, The Sun ran a series of false stories about the pop musician Elton John from 25 February 1987. They began with an invented account of the singer having sexual relationships with rent boys. <hl> The singer-songwriter was abroad on the day indicated in the story, as former Sun journalist John Blake , recently poached by the Daily Mirror, soon discovered. <hl> After further stories, in September 1987, The Sun accused John of having his Rottweiler guard dogs voice boxes surgically removed. In November, the Daily Mirror found their rival's only source for the rent boy story and he admitted it was a totally fictitious concoction created for money. The inaccurate story about his dogs, actually Alsatians, put pressure on The Sun, and John received £1 million in an out of court settlement, then the largest damages payment in British history. The Sun ran a front-page apology on 12 December 1988, under the banner headline "SORRY, ELTON". In May 1987 gay men were offered free one-way airline tickets to Norway to leave Britain for good: "Fly Away Gays - And We Will Pay" was the paper's headline. Gay Church of England clergymen were described in one headline in November 1987 as "Pulpit poofs".

Eventually resulting in 17 libel writs in total, The Sun ran a series of false stories about the pop musician Elton John from 25 February 1987. They began with an invented account of the singer having sexual relationships with rent boys. The singer-songwriter was abroad on the day indicated in the story, as former Sun journalist <hl> John Blake <hl>, recently poached by the Daily Mirror, soon discovered. After further stories, in September 1987, The Sun accused John of having his Rottweiler guard dogs voice boxes surgically removed. In November, the Daily Mirror found their rival's only source for the rent boy story and he admitted it was a totally fictitious concoction created for money. The inaccurate story about his dogs, actually Alsatians, put pressure on The Sun, and John received £1 million in an out of court settlement, then the largest damages payment in British history. The Sun ran a front-page apology on 12 December 1988, under the banner headline "SORRY, ELTON". In May 1987 gay men were offered free one-way airline tickets to Norway to leave Britain for good: "Fly Away Gays - And We Will Pay" was the paper's headline. Gay Church of England clergymen were described in one headline in November 1987 as "Pulpit poofs".

The singer-songwriter was abroad on the day indicated in the story, as former Sun journalist <hl> John Blake <hl> , recently poached by the Daily Mirror, soon discovered.


Question: What breed of dog did The Sun mistakenly report that Elton John owned?

Answer: Rottweiler

Eventually resulting in 17 libel writs in total, The Sun ran a series of false stories about the pop musician Elton John from 25 February 1987. They began with an invented account of the singer having sexual relationships with rent boys. The singer-songwriter was abroad on the day indicated in the story, as former Sun journalist John Blake, recently poached by the Daily Mirror, soon discovered. <hl> After further stories, in September 1987, The Sun accused John of having his Rottweiler guard dogs voice boxes surgically removed. <hl> In November, the Daily Mirror found their rival's only source for the rent boy story and he admitted it was a totally fictitious concoction created for money. The inaccurate story about his dogs, actually Alsatians, put pressure on The Sun, and John received £1 million in an out of court settlement, then the largest damages payment in British history. The Sun ran a front-page apology on 12 December 1988, under the banner headline "SORRY, ELTON". In May 1987 gay men were offered free one-way airline tickets to Norway to leave Britain for good: "Fly Away Gays - And We Will Pay" was the paper's headline. Gay Church of England clergymen were described in one headline in November 1987 as "Pulpit poofs".

Eventually resulting in 17 libel writs in total, The Sun ran a series of false stories about the pop musician Elton John from 25 February 1987. They began with an invented account of the singer having sexual relationships with rent boys. The singer-songwriter was abroad on the day indicated in the story, as former Sun journalist John Blake, recently poached by the Daily Mirror, soon discovered. After further stories, in September 1987, The Sun accused John of having his <hl> Rottweiler <hl> guard dogs voice boxes surgically removed. In November, the Daily Mirror found their rival's only source for the rent boy story and he admitted it was a totally fictitious concoction created for money. The inaccurate story about his dogs, actually Alsatians, put pressure on The Sun, and John received £1 million in an out of court settlement, then the largest damages payment in British history. The Sun ran a front-page apology on 12 December 1988, under the banner headline "SORRY, ELTON". In May 1987 gay men were offered free one-way airline tickets to Norway to leave Britain for good: "Fly Away Gays - And We Will Pay" was the paper's headline. Gay Church of England clergymen were described in one headline in November 1987 as "Pulpit poofs".


Question: Where did The Sun offer to fly gay men in 1987?

Answer: Norway

Eventually resulting in 17 libel writs in total, The Sun ran a series of false stories about the pop musician Elton John from 25 February 1987. They began with an invented account of the singer having sexual relationships with rent boys. The singer-songwriter was abroad on the day indicated in the story, as former Sun journalist John Blake, recently poached by the Daily Mirror, soon discovered. After further stories, in September 1987, The Sun accused John of having his Rottweiler guard dogs voice boxes surgically removed. In November, the Daily Mirror found their rival's only source for the rent boy story and he admitted it was a totally fictitious concoction created for money. The inaccurate story about his dogs, actually Alsatians, put pressure on The Sun, and John received £1 million in an out of court settlement, then the largest damages payment in British history. The Sun ran a front-page apology on 12 December 1988, under the banner headline "SORRY, ELTON". <hl> In May 1987 gay men were offered free one-way airline tickets to Norway to leave Britain for good: "Fly Away Gays - And We Will Pay" was the paper's headline. <hl> Gay Church of England clergymen were described in one headline in November 1987 as "Pulpit poofs".

Eventually resulting in 17 libel writs in total, The Sun ran a series of false stories about the pop musician Elton John from 25 February 1987. They began with an invented account of the singer having sexual relationships with rent boys. The singer-songwriter was abroad on the day indicated in the story, as former Sun journalist John Blake, recently poached by the Daily Mirror, soon discovered. After further stories, in September 1987, The Sun accused John of having his Rottweiler guard dogs voice boxes surgically removed. In November, the Daily Mirror found their rival's only source for the rent boy story and he admitted it was a totally fictitious concoction created for money. The inaccurate story about his dogs, actually Alsatians, put pressure on The Sun, and John received £1 million in an out of court settlement, then the largest damages payment in British history. The Sun ran a front-page apology on 12 December 1988, under the banner headline "SORRY, ELTON". In May 1987 gay men were offered free one-way airline tickets to <hl> Norway <hl> to leave Britain for good: "Fly Away Gays - And We Will Pay" was the paper's headline. Gay Church of England clergymen were described in one headline in November 1987 as "Pulpit poofs".


Question: What did Piers Morgan offer opinions about in a late 1980s column?

Television personality Piers Morgan, a former editor of the Daily Mirror and of The Sun's Bizarre pop column, has said that during the late 1980s, at Kelvin MacKenzie's behest, he was ordered to speculate on the sexuality of male pop stars for a feature headlined "The Poofs of Pop". He also recalls MacKenzie headlining a January 1989 story about the first same-sex kiss on the BBC television soap opera EastEnders "EastBenders", describing the kiss between Colin Russell and Guido Smith as "a homosexual love scene between yuppie poofs ... when millions of children were watching".

Answer: the sexuality of male pop stars

<hl> Television personality Piers Morgan, a former editor of the Daily Mirror and of The Sun's Bizarre pop column, has said that during the late 1980s, at Kelvin MacKenzie's behest, he was ordered to speculate on the sexuality of male pop stars for a feature headlined "The Poofs of Pop". <hl> He also recalls MacKenzie headlining a January 1989 story about the first same-sex kiss on the BBC television soap opera EastEnders "EastBenders", describing the kiss between Colin Russell and Guido Smith as "a homosexual love scene between yuppie poofs ... when millions of children were watching".

Television personality Piers Morgan, a former editor of the Daily Mirror and of The Sun's Bizarre pop column, has said that during the late 1980s, at Kelvin MacKenzie's behest, he was ordered to speculate on <hl> the sexuality of male pop stars <hl> for a feature headlined "The Poofs of Pop". He also recalls MacKenzie headlining a January 1989 story about the first same-sex kiss on the BBC television soap opera EastEnders "EastBenders", describing the kiss between Colin Russell and Guido Smith as "a homosexual love scene between yuppie poofs ... when millions of children were watching".


Question: Which papers did Morgan serve as editor of?

Answer: Daily Mirror and of The Sun

<hl> Television personality Piers Morgan, a former editor of the Daily Mirror and of The Sun 's Bizarre pop column, has said that during the late 1980s, at Kelvin MacKenzie's behest, he was ordered to speculate on the sexuality of male pop stars for a feature headlined "The Poofs of Pop". <hl> He also recalls MacKenzie headlining a January 1989 story about the first same-sex kiss on the BBC television soap opera EastEnders "EastBenders", describing the kiss between Colin Russell and Guido Smith as "a homosexual love scene between yuppie poofs ... when millions of children were watching".

Television personality Piers Morgan, a former editor of the <hl> Daily Mirror and of The Sun <hl>'s Bizarre pop column, has said that during the late 1980s, at Kelvin MacKenzie's behest, he was ordered to speculate on the sexuality of male pop stars for a feature headlined "The Poofs of Pop". He also recalls MacKenzie headlining a January 1989 story about the first same-sex kiss on the BBC television soap opera EastEnders "EastBenders", describing the kiss between Colin Russell and Guido Smith as "a homosexual love scene between yuppie poofs ... when millions of children were watching".

Television personality Piers Morgan, a former editor of the <hl> Daily Mirror and of The Sun <hl> 's Bizarre pop column, has said that during the late 1980s, at Kelvin MacKenzie's behest, he was ordered to speculate on the sexuality of male pop stars for a feature headlined "The Poofs of Pop".


Question: Which BBC show's homosexual kiss did The Sun report on?

Answer: EastEnders

Television personality Piers Morgan, a former editor of the Daily Mirror and of The Sun's Bizarre pop column, has said that during the late 1980s, at Kelvin MacKenzie's behest, he was ordered to speculate on the sexuality of male pop stars for a feature headlined "The Poofs of Pop". <hl> He also recalls MacKenzie headlining a January 1989 story about the first same-sex kiss on the BBC television soap opera EastEnders "EastBenders", describing the kiss between Colin Russell and Guido Smith as "a homosexual love scene between yuppie poofs ... when millions of children were watching". <hl>

Television personality Piers Morgan, a former editor of the Daily Mirror and of The Sun's Bizarre pop column, has said that during the late 1980s, at Kelvin MacKenzie's behest, he was ordered to speculate on the sexuality of male pop stars for a feature headlined "The Poofs of Pop". He also recalls MacKenzie headlining a January 1989 story about the first same-sex kiss on the BBC television soap opera <hl> EastEnders <hl> "EastBenders", describing the kiss between Colin Russell and Guido Smith as "a homosexual love scene between yuppie poofs ... when millions of children were watching".


Question: Who shared the first homosexual kiss on EastEnders?

Answer: Colin Russell and Guido Smith

Television personality Piers Morgan, a former editor of the Daily Mirror and of The Sun's Bizarre pop column, has said that during the late 1980s, at Kelvin MacKenzie's behest, he was ordered to speculate on the sexuality of male pop stars for a feature headlined "The Poofs of Pop". <hl> He also recalls MacKenzie headlining a January 1989 story about the first same-sex kiss on the BBC television soap opera EastEnders "EastBenders", describing the kiss between Colin Russell and Guido Smith as "a homosexual love scene between yuppie poofs ... when millions of children were watching". <hl>

Television personality Piers Morgan, a former editor of the Daily Mirror and of The Sun's Bizarre pop column, has said that during the late 1980s, at Kelvin MacKenzie's behest, he was ordered to speculate on the sexuality of male pop stars for a feature headlined "The Poofs of Pop". He also recalls MacKenzie headlining a January 1989 story about the first same-sex kiss on the BBC television soap opera EastEnders "EastBenders", describing the kiss between <hl> Colin Russell and Guido Smith <hl> as "a homosexual love scene between yuppie poofs ... when millions of children were watching".


Question: Which column did Piers Morgan edit at The Sun?

Answer: Bizarre pop column

<hl> Television personality Piers Morgan, a former editor of the Daily Mirror and of The Sun's Bizarre pop column , has said that during the late 1980s, at Kelvin MacKenzie's behest, he was ordered to speculate on the sexuality of male pop stars for a feature headlined "The Poofs of Pop". <hl> He also recalls MacKenzie headlining a January 1989 story about the first same-sex kiss on the BBC television soap opera EastEnders "EastBenders", describing the kiss between Colin Russell and Guido Smith as "a homosexual love scene between yuppie poofs ... when millions of children were watching".

Television personality Piers Morgan, a former editor of the Daily Mirror and of The Sun's <hl> Bizarre pop column <hl>, has said that during the late 1980s, at Kelvin MacKenzie's behest, he was ordered to speculate on the sexuality of male pop stars for a feature headlined "The Poofs of Pop". He also recalls MacKenzie headlining a January 1989 story about the first same-sex kiss on the BBC television soap opera EastEnders "EastBenders", describing the kiss between Colin Russell and Guido Smith as "a homosexual love scene between yuppie poofs ... when millions of children were watching".

Television personality Piers Morgan, a former editor of the Daily Mirror and of The Sun's <hl> Bizarre pop column <hl> , has said that during the late 1980s, at Kelvin MacKenzie's behest, he was ordered to speculate on the sexuality of male pop stars for a feature headlined "The Poofs of Pop".


Question: What was the headline for a page 2 Sun story on 17 November 1989?

On 17 November 1989, The Sun headlined a page 2 news story titled "STRAIGHT SEX CANNOT GIVE YOU AIDS – OFFICIAL." The Sun favourably cited the opinions of Lord Kilbracken, a member of the All Parliamentary Group on AIDS. Lord Kilbracken said that only one person out of the 2,372 individuals with HIV/AIDS mentioned in a specific Department of Health report was not a member of a "high risk group", such as homosexuals and recreational drug users. The Sun also ran an editorial further arguing that "At last the truth can be told... the risk of catching AIDS if you are heterosexual is "statistically invisible". In other words, impossible. So now we know – everything else is homosexual propaganda." Although many other British press services covered Lord Kilbracken's public comments, none of them made the argument that the Sun did in its editorial and none of them presented Lord Kilbracken's ideas without context or criticism.

Answer: "STRAIGHT SEX CANNOT GIVE YOU AIDS – OFFICIAL."

<hl> On 17 November 1989, The Sun headlined a page 2 news story titled "STRAIGHT SEX CANNOT GIVE YOU AIDS – OFFICIAL." The Sun favourably cited the opinions of Lord Kilbracken, a member of the All Parliamentary Group on AIDS. <hl> Lord Kilbracken said that only one person out of the 2,372 individuals with HIV/AIDS mentioned in a specific Department of Health report was not a member of a "high risk group", such as homosexuals and recreational drug users. The Sun also ran an editorial further arguing that "At last the truth can be told... the risk of catching AIDS if you are heterosexual is "statistically invisible". In other words, impossible. So now we know – everything else is homosexual propaganda." Although many other British press services covered Lord Kilbracken's public comments, none of them made the argument that the Sun did in its editorial and none of them presented Lord Kilbracken's ideas without context or criticism.

On 17 November 1989, The Sun headlined a page 2 news story titled <hl> "STRAIGHT SEX CANNOT GIVE YOU AIDS – OFFICIAL." <hl> The Sun favourably cited the opinions of Lord Kilbracken, a member of the All Parliamentary Group on AIDS. Lord Kilbracken said that only one person out of the 2,372 individuals with HIV/AIDS mentioned in a specific Department of Health report was not a member of a "high risk group", such as homosexuals and recreational drug users. The Sun also ran an editorial further arguing that "At last the truth can be told... the risk of catching AIDS if you are heterosexual is "statistically invisible". In other words, impossible. So now we know – everything else is homosexual propaganda." Although many other British press services covered Lord Kilbracken's public comments, none of them made the argument that the Sun did in its editorial and none of them presented Lord Kilbracken's ideas without context or criticism.


Question: Whose opinion did The Sun trust in their AIDS reporting?

Answer: Lord Kilbracken

On 17 November 1989, The Sun headlined a page 2 news story titled "STRAIGHT SEX CANNOT GIVE YOU AIDS – OFFICIAL." <hl> The Sun favourably cited the opinions of Lord Kilbracken , a member of the All Parliamentary Group on AIDS. <hl> Lord Kilbracken said that only one person out of the 2,372 individuals with HIV/AIDS mentioned in a specific Department of Health report was not a member of a "high risk group", such as homosexuals and recreational drug users. The Sun also ran an editorial further arguing that "At last the truth can be told... the risk of catching AIDS if you are heterosexual is "statistically invisible". In other words, impossible. So now we know – everything else is homosexual propaganda." Although many other British press services covered Lord Kilbracken's public comments, none of them made the argument that the Sun did in its editorial and none of them presented Lord Kilbracken's ideas without context or criticism.

On 17 November 1989, The Sun headlined a page 2 news story titled "STRAIGHT SEX CANNOT GIVE YOU AIDS – OFFICIAL." The Sun favourably cited the opinions of <hl> Lord Kilbracken <hl>, a member of the All Parliamentary Group on AIDS. Lord Kilbracken said that only one person out of the 2,372 individuals with HIV/AIDS mentioned in a specific Department of Health report was not a member of a "high risk group", such as homosexuals and recreational drug users. The Sun also ran an editorial further arguing that "At last the truth can be told... the risk of catching AIDS if you are heterosexual is "statistically invisible". In other words, impossible. So now we know – everything else is homosexual propaganda." Although many other British press services covered Lord Kilbracken's public comments, none of them made the argument that the Sun did in its editorial and none of them presented Lord Kilbracken's ideas without context or criticism.

The Sun favourably cited the opinions of <hl> Lord Kilbracken <hl> , a member of the All Parliamentary Group on AIDS.


Question: Which groups were classified as being at a high risk for AIDS?

Answer: homosexuals and recreational drug users

On 17 November 1989, The Sun headlined a page 2 news story titled "STRAIGHT SEX CANNOT GIVE YOU AIDS – OFFICIAL." The Sun favourably cited the opinions of Lord Kilbracken, a member of the All Parliamentary Group on AIDS. <hl> Lord Kilbracken said that only one person out of the 2,372 individuals with HIV/AIDS mentioned in a specific Department of Health report was not a member of a "high risk group", such as homosexuals and recreational drug users . <hl> The Sun also ran an editorial further arguing that "At last the truth can be told... the risk of catching AIDS if you are heterosexual is "statistically invisible". In other words, impossible. So now we know – everything else is homosexual propaganda." Although many other British press services covered Lord Kilbracken's public comments, none of them made the argument that the Sun did in its editorial and none of them presented Lord Kilbracken's ideas without context or criticism.

On 17 November 1989, The Sun headlined a page 2 news story titled "STRAIGHT SEX CANNOT GIVE YOU AIDS – OFFICIAL." The Sun favourably cited the opinions of Lord Kilbracken, a member of the All Parliamentary Group on AIDS. Lord Kilbracken said that only one person out of the 2,372 individuals with HIV/AIDS mentioned in a specific Department of Health report was not a member of a "high risk group", such as <hl> homosexuals and recreational drug users <hl>. The Sun also ran an editorial further arguing that "At last the truth can be told... the risk of catching AIDS if you are heterosexual is "statistically invisible". In other words, impossible. So now we know – everything else is homosexual propaganda." Although many other British press services covered Lord Kilbracken's public comments, none of them made the argument that the Sun did in its editorial and none of them presented Lord Kilbracken's ideas without context or criticism.

Lord Kilbracken said that only one person out of the 2,372 individuals with HIV/AIDS mentioned in a specific Department of Health report was not a member of a "high risk group", such as <hl> homosexuals and recreational drug users <hl> .


Question: With which group was Lord Kilbracken associated?

Answer: All Parliamentary Group on AIDS

On 17 November 1989, The Sun headlined a page 2 news story titled "STRAIGHT SEX CANNOT GIVE YOU AIDS – OFFICIAL." <hl> The Sun favourably cited the opinions of Lord Kilbracken, a member of the All Parliamentary Group on AIDS . <hl> Lord Kilbracken said that only one person out of the 2,372 individuals with HIV/AIDS mentioned in a specific Department of Health report was not a member of a "high risk group", such as homosexuals and recreational drug users. The Sun also ran an editorial further arguing that "At last the truth can be told... the risk of catching AIDS if you are heterosexual is "statistically invisible". In other words, impossible. So now we know – everything else is homosexual propaganda." Although many other British press services covered Lord Kilbracken's public comments, none of them made the argument that the Sun did in its editorial and none of them presented Lord Kilbracken's ideas without context or criticism.

On 17 November 1989, The Sun headlined a page 2 news story titled "STRAIGHT SEX CANNOT GIVE YOU AIDS – OFFICIAL." The Sun favourably cited the opinions of Lord Kilbracken, a member of the <hl> All Parliamentary Group on AIDS <hl>. Lord Kilbracken said that only one person out of the 2,372 individuals with HIV/AIDS mentioned in a specific Department of Health report was not a member of a "high risk group", such as homosexuals and recreational drug users. The Sun also ran an editorial further arguing that "At last the truth can be told... the risk of catching AIDS if you are heterosexual is "statistically invisible". In other words, impossible. So now we know – everything else is homosexual propaganda." Although many other British press services covered Lord Kilbracken's public comments, none of them made the argument that the Sun did in its editorial and none of them presented Lord Kilbracken's ideas without context or criticism.

The Sun favourably cited the opinions of Lord Kilbracken, a member of the <hl> All Parliamentary Group on AIDS <hl> .


Question: How did other news outlets report on Lord Kilbracken's words?

Answer: none of them presented Lord Kilbracken's ideas without context or criticism

On 17 November 1989, The Sun headlined a page 2 news story titled "STRAIGHT SEX CANNOT GIVE YOU AIDS – OFFICIAL." The Sun favourably cited the opinions of Lord Kilbracken, a member of the All Parliamentary Group on AIDS. Lord Kilbracken said that only one person out of the 2,372 individuals with HIV/AIDS mentioned in a specific Department of Health report was not a member of a "high risk group", such as homosexuals and recreational drug users. The Sun also ran an editorial further arguing that "At last the truth can be told... the risk of catching AIDS if you are heterosexual is "statistically invisible". In other words, impossible. So now we know – everything else is homosexual propaganda." <hl> Although many other British press services covered Lord Kilbracken's public comments, none of them made the argument that the Sun did in its editorial and none of them presented Lord Kilbracken's ideas without context or criticism . <hl>

On 17 November 1989, The Sun headlined a page 2 news story titled "STRAIGHT SEX CANNOT GIVE YOU AIDS – OFFICIAL." The Sun favourably cited the opinions of Lord Kilbracken, a member of the All Parliamentary Group on AIDS. Lord Kilbracken said that only one person out of the 2,372 individuals with HIV/AIDS mentioned in a specific Department of Health report was not a member of a "high risk group", such as homosexuals and recreational drug users. The Sun also ran an editorial further arguing that "At last the truth can be told... the risk of catching AIDS if you are heterosexual is "statistically invisible". In other words, impossible. So now we know – everything else is homosexual propaganda." Although many other British press services covered Lord Kilbracken's public comments, none of them made the argument that the Sun did in its editorial and <hl> none of them presented Lord Kilbracken's ideas without context or criticism <hl>.

Although many other British press services covered Lord Kilbracken's public comments, none of them made the argument that the Sun did in its editorial and <hl> none of them presented Lord Kilbracken's ideas without context or criticism <hl> .


Question: What did critics believe about The Sun and Lord Kilbracken's ideas on AIDS?

Critics stated that both The Sun and Lord Kilbracken cherry-picked the results from one specific study while ignoring other data reports on HIV infection and not just AIDS infection, which the critics viewed as unethical politicisation of a medical issue. Lord Kilbracken himself criticised The Sun's editorial and the headline of its news story; he stated that while he thought that gay people were more at risk of developing AIDS it was still wrong to imply that no one else could catch the disease. The Press Council condemned The Sun for committing what it called a "gross distortion". The Sun later ran an apology, which they ran on Page 28. Journalist David Randall argued in the textbook The Universal Journalist that The Sun's story was one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent history, putting its own readers in harm's way.

Answer: The Sun and Lord Kilbracken cherry-picked the results from one specific study while ignoring other data reports on HIV infection and not just AIDS infection

<hl> Critics stated that both The Sun and Lord Kilbracken cherry-picked the results from one specific study while ignoring other data reports on HIV infection and not just AIDS infection , which the critics viewed as unethical politicisation of a medical issue. <hl> Lord Kilbracken himself criticised The Sun's editorial and the headline of its news story; he stated that while he thought that gay people were more at risk of developing AIDS it was still wrong to imply that no one else could catch the disease. The Press Council condemned The Sun for committing what it called a "gross distortion". The Sun later ran an apology, which they ran on Page 28. Journalist David Randall argued in the textbook The Universal Journalist that The Sun's story was one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent history, putting its own readers in harm's way.

Critics stated that both <hl> The Sun and Lord Kilbracken cherry-picked the results from one specific study while ignoring other data reports on HIV infection and not just AIDS infection <hl>, which the critics viewed as unethical politicisation of a medical issue. Lord Kilbracken himself criticised The Sun's editorial and the headline of its news story; he stated that while he thought that gay people were more at risk of developing AIDS it was still wrong to imply that no one else could catch the disease. The Press Council condemned The Sun for committing what it called a "gross distortion". The Sun later ran an apology, which they ran on Page 28. Journalist David Randall argued in the textbook The Universal Journalist that The Sun's story was one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent history, putting its own readers in harm's way.

Critics stated that both <hl> The Sun and Lord Kilbracken cherry-picked the results from one specific study while ignoring other data reports on HIV infection and not just AIDS infection <hl> , which the critics viewed as unethical politicisation of a medical issue.


Question: What did Lord Kilbracken think of The Sun's editorial?

Answer: Lord Kilbracken himself criticised The Sun's editorial and the headline of its news story

Critics stated that both The Sun and Lord Kilbracken cherry-picked the results from one specific study while ignoring other data reports on HIV infection and not just AIDS infection, which the critics viewed as unethical politicisation of a medical issue. <hl> Lord Kilbracken himself criticised The Sun's editorial and the headline of its news story ; he stated that while he thought that gay people were more at risk of developing AIDS it was still wrong to imply that no one else could catch the disease. <hl> The Press Council condemned The Sun for committing what it called a "gross distortion". The Sun later ran an apology, which they ran on Page 28. Journalist David Randall argued in the textbook The Universal Journalist that The Sun's story was one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent history, putting its own readers in harm's way.

Critics stated that both The Sun and Lord Kilbracken cherry-picked the results from one specific study while ignoring other data reports on HIV infection and not just AIDS infection, which the critics viewed as unethical politicisation of a medical issue. <hl> Lord Kilbracken himself criticised The Sun's editorial and the headline of its news story <hl>; he stated that while he thought that gay people were more at risk of developing AIDS it was still wrong to imply that no one else could catch the disease. The Press Council condemned The Sun for committing what it called a "gross distortion". The Sun later ran an apology, which they ran on Page 28. Journalist David Randall argued in the textbook The Universal Journalist that The Sun's story was one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent history, putting its own readers in harm's way.

<hl> Lord Kilbracken himself criticised The Sun's editorial and the headline of its news story <hl> ; he stated that while he thought that gay people were more at risk of developing AIDS it was still wrong to imply that no one else could catch the disease.


Question: Who criticized The Sun for its reporting on AIDS and HIV?

Answer: The Press Council

Critics stated that both The Sun and Lord Kilbracken cherry-picked the results from one specific study while ignoring other data reports on HIV infection and not just AIDS infection, which the critics viewed as unethical politicisation of a medical issue. Lord Kilbracken himself criticised The Sun's editorial and the headline of its news story; he stated that while he thought that gay people were more at risk of developing AIDS it was still wrong to imply that no one else could catch the disease. <hl> The Press Council condemned The Sun for committing what it called a "gross distortion". <hl> The Sun later ran an apology, which they ran on Page 28. Journalist David Randall argued in the textbook The Universal Journalist that The Sun's story was one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent history, putting its own readers in harm's way.

Critics stated that both The Sun and Lord Kilbracken cherry-picked the results from one specific study while ignoring other data reports on HIV infection and not just AIDS infection, which the critics viewed as unethical politicisation of a medical issue. Lord Kilbracken himself criticised The Sun's editorial and the headline of its news story; he stated that while he thought that gay people were more at risk of developing AIDS it was still wrong to imply that no one else could catch the disease. <hl> The Press Council <hl> condemned The Sun for committing what it called a "gross distortion". The Sun later ran an apology, which they ran on Page 28. Journalist David Randall argued in the textbook The Universal Journalist that The Sun's story was one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent history, putting its own readers in harm's way.


Question: What did David Randall say about the Sun's AIDS story?

Answer: The Sun's story was one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent history

Critics stated that both The Sun and Lord Kilbracken cherry-picked the results from one specific study while ignoring other data reports on HIV infection and not just AIDS infection, which the critics viewed as unethical politicisation of a medical issue. Lord Kilbracken himself criticised The Sun's editorial and the headline of its news story; he stated that while he thought that gay people were more at risk of developing AIDS it was still wrong to imply that no one else could catch the disease. The Press Council condemned The Sun for committing what it called a "gross distortion". The Sun later ran an apology, which they ran on Page 28. <hl> Journalist David Randall argued in the textbook The Universal Journalist that The Sun's story was one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent history , putting its own readers in harm's way. <hl>

Critics stated that both The Sun and Lord Kilbracken cherry-picked the results from one specific study while ignoring other data reports on HIV infection and not just AIDS infection, which the critics viewed as unethical politicisation of a medical issue. Lord Kilbracken himself criticised The Sun's editorial and the headline of its news story; he stated that while he thought that gay people were more at risk of developing AIDS it was still wrong to imply that no one else could catch the disease. The Press Council condemned The Sun for committing what it called a "gross distortion". The Sun later ran an apology, which they ran on Page 28. Journalist David Randall argued in the textbook The Universal Journalist that <hl> The Sun's story was one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent history <hl>, putting its own readers in harm's way.

Journalist David Randall argued in the textbook The Universal Journalist that <hl> The Sun's story was one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent history <hl> , putting its own readers in harm's way.


Question: In what textbook did David Randall write his opinion?

Answer: The Universal Journalist

Critics stated that both The Sun and Lord Kilbracken cherry-picked the results from one specific study while ignoring other data reports on HIV infection and not just AIDS infection, which the critics viewed as unethical politicisation of a medical issue. Lord Kilbracken himself criticised The Sun's editorial and the headline of its news story; he stated that while he thought that gay people were more at risk of developing AIDS it was still wrong to imply that no one else could catch the disease. The Press Council condemned The Sun for committing what it called a "gross distortion". The Sun later ran an apology, which they ran on Page 28. <hl> Journalist David Randall argued in the textbook The Universal Journalist that The Sun's story was one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent history, putting its own readers in harm's way. <hl>

Critics stated that both The Sun and Lord Kilbracken cherry-picked the results from one specific study while ignoring other data reports on HIV infection and not just AIDS infection, which the critics viewed as unethical politicisation of a medical issue. Lord Kilbracken himself criticised The Sun's editorial and the headline of its news story; he stated that while he thought that gay people were more at risk of developing AIDS it was still wrong to imply that no one else could catch the disease. The Press Council condemned The Sun for committing what it called a "gross distortion". The Sun later ran an apology, which they ran on Page 28. Journalist David Randall argued in the textbook <hl> The Universal Journalist <hl> that The Sun's story was one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent history, putting its own readers in harm's way.


Question: What did the paper report that some fans did?

Under a front page headline "The Truth", the paper printed allegations provided to them that some fans picked the pockets of crushed victims, that others urinated on members of the emergency services as they tried to help and that some even assaulted a police constable "whilst he was administering the kiss of life to a patient." Despite the headline, written by Kelvin MacKenzie, the story was based on allegations either by unnamed and unattributable sources, or hearsay accounts of what named individuals had said – a fact made clear to MacKenzie by Harry Arnold, the reporter who wrote the story.

Answer: picked the pockets of crushed victims

<hl> Under a front page headline "The Truth", the paper printed allegations provided to them that some fans picked the pockets of crushed victims , that others urinated on members of the emergency services as they tried to help and that some even assaulted a police constable "whilst he was administering the kiss of life to a patient." <hl> Despite the headline, written by Kelvin MacKenzie, the story was based on allegations either by unnamed and unattributable sources, or hearsay accounts of what named individuals had said – a fact made clear to MacKenzie by Harry Arnold, the reporter who wrote the story.

Under a front page headline "The Truth", the paper printed allegations provided to them that some fans <hl> picked the pockets of crushed victims <hl>, that others urinated on members of the emergency services as they tried to help and that some even assaulted a police constable "whilst he was administering the kiss of life to a patient." Despite the headline, written by Kelvin MacKenzie, the story was based on allegations either by unnamed and unattributable sources, or hearsay accounts of what named individuals had said – a fact made clear to MacKenzie by Harry Arnold, the reporter who wrote the story.

Under a front page headline "The Truth", the paper printed allegations provided to them that some fans <hl> picked the pockets of crushed victims <hl> , that others urinated on members of the emergency services as they tried to help and that some even assaulted a police constable "whilst he was administering the kiss of life to a patient."


Question: Who was reported to have been assaulted while trying to help a patient?

Answer: a police constable

<hl> Under a front page headline "The Truth", the paper printed allegations provided to them that some fans picked the pockets of crushed victims, that others urinated on members of the emergency services as they tried to help and that some even assaulted a police constable "whilst he was administering the kiss of life to a patient." <hl> Despite the headline, written by Kelvin MacKenzie, the story was based on allegations either by unnamed and unattributable sources, or hearsay accounts of what named individuals had said – a fact made clear to MacKenzie by Harry Arnold, the reporter who wrote the story.

Under a front page headline "The Truth", the paper printed allegations provided to them that some fans picked the pockets of crushed victims, that others urinated on members of the emergency services as they tried to help and that some even assaulted <hl> a police constable <hl> "whilst he was administering the kiss of life to a patient." Despite the headline, written by Kelvin MacKenzie, the story was based on allegations either by unnamed and unattributable sources, or hearsay accounts of what named individuals had said – a fact made clear to MacKenzie by Harry Arnold, the reporter who wrote the story.


Question: Who wrote the headline "The Truth"?

Answer: Kelvin MacKenzie

Under a front page headline "The Truth", the paper printed allegations provided to them that some fans picked the pockets of crushed victims, that others urinated on members of the emergency services as they tried to help and that some even assaulted a police constable "whilst he was administering the kiss of life to a patient." <hl> Despite the headline, written by Kelvin MacKenzie , the story was based on allegations either by unnamed and unattributable sources, or hearsay accounts of what named individuals had said – a fact made clear to MacKenzie by Harry Arnold, the reporter who wrote the story. <hl>

Under a front page headline "The Truth", the paper printed allegations provided to them that some fans picked the pockets of crushed victims, that others urinated on members of the emergency services as they tried to help and that some even assaulted a police constable "whilst he was administering the kiss of life to a patient." Despite the headline, written by <hl> Kelvin MacKenzie <hl>, the story was based on allegations either by unnamed and unattributable sources, or hearsay accounts of what named individuals had said – a fact made clear to MacKenzie by Harry Arnold, the reporter who wrote the story.

Despite the headline, written by <hl> Kelvin MacKenzie <hl> , the story was based on allegations either by unnamed and unattributable sources, or hearsay accounts of what named individuals had said – a fact made clear to MacKenzie by Harry Arnold, the reporter who wrote the story.


Question: Who wrote the actual story?

Answer: Harry Arnold

Under a front page headline "The Truth", the paper printed allegations provided to them that some fans picked the pockets of crushed victims, that others urinated on members of the emergency services as they tried to help and that some even assaulted a police constable "whilst he was administering the kiss of life to a patient." <hl> Despite the headline, written by Kelvin MacKenzie, the story was based on allegations either by unnamed and unattributable sources, or hearsay accounts of what named individuals had said – a fact made clear to MacKenzie by Harry Arnold , the reporter who wrote the story. <hl>

Under a front page headline "The Truth", the paper printed allegations provided to them that some fans picked the pockets of crushed victims, that others urinated on members of the emergency services as they tried to help and that some even assaulted a police constable "whilst he was administering the kiss of life to a patient." Despite the headline, written by Kelvin MacKenzie, the story was based on allegations either by unnamed and unattributable sources, or hearsay accounts of what named individuals had said – a fact made clear to MacKenzie by <hl> Harry Arnold <hl>, the reporter who wrote the story.

Despite the headline, written by Kelvin MacKenzie, the story was based on allegations either by unnamed and unattributable sources, or hearsay accounts of what named individuals had said – a fact made clear to MacKenzie by <hl> Harry Arnold <hl> , the reporter who wrote the story.


Question: What was the story based on?

Answer: allegations either by unnamed and unattributable sources, or hearsay accounts of what named individuals had said

Under a front page headline "The Truth", the paper printed allegations provided to them that some fans picked the pockets of crushed victims, that others urinated on members of the emergency services as they tried to help and that some even assaulted a police constable "whilst he was administering the kiss of life to a patient." <hl> Despite the headline, written by Kelvin MacKenzie, the story was based on allegations either by unnamed and unattributable sources, or hearsay accounts of what named individuals had said – a fact made clear to MacKenzie by Harry Arnold, the reporter who wrote the story. <hl>

Under a front page headline "The Truth", the paper printed allegations provided to them that some fans picked the pockets of crushed victims, that others urinated on members of the emergency services as they tried to help and that some even assaulted a police constable "whilst he was administering the kiss of life to a patient." Despite the headline, written by Kelvin MacKenzie, the story was based on <hl> allegations either by unnamed and unattributable sources, or hearsay accounts of what named individuals had said <hl> – a fact made clear to MacKenzie by Harry Arnold, the reporter who wrote the story.


Question: Where did The sun lose a large portion of its daily sales as a result of the front page?

The front page caused outrage in Liverpool, where the paper lost more than three-quarters of its estimated 55,000 daily sales and still sells poorly in the city more than 25 years later (around 12,000). It is unavailable in many parts of the city, as many newsagents refuse to stock it. It was revealed in a documentary called Alexei Sayle's Liverpool, aired in September 2008, that many Liverpudlians will not even take the newspaper for free, and those who do may simply burn or tear it up. Liverpudlians refer to the paper as 'The Scum' with campaigners believing it handicapped their fight for justice.

Answer: Liverpool

<hl> The front page caused outrage in Liverpool , where the paper lost more than three-quarters of its estimated 55,000 daily sales and still sells poorly in the city more than 25 years later (around 12,000). <hl> It is unavailable in many parts of the city, as many newsagents refuse to stock it. It was revealed in a documentary called Alexei Sayle's Liverpool, aired in September 2008, that many Liverpudlians will not even take the newspaper for free, and those who do may simply burn or tear it up. Liverpudlians refer to the paper as 'The Scum' with campaigners believing it handicapped their fight for justice.

The front page caused outrage in <hl> Liverpool <hl>, where the paper lost more than three-quarters of its estimated 55,000 daily sales and still sells poorly in the city more than 25 years later (around 12,000). It is unavailable in many parts of the city, as many newsagents refuse to stock it. It was revealed in a documentary called Alexei Sayle's Liverpool, aired in September 2008, that many Liverpudlians will not even take the newspaper for free, and those who do may simply burn or tear it up. Liverpudlians refer to the paper as 'The Scum' with campaigners believing it handicapped their fight for justice.

The front page caused outrage in <hl> Liverpool <hl> , where the paper lost more than three-quarters of its estimated 55,000 daily sales and still sells poorly in the city more than 25 years later (around 12,000).


Question: What were the estimated daily sales in Liverpool 25 years later?

Answer: around 12,000

<hl> The front page caused outrage in Liverpool, where the paper lost more than three-quarters of its estimated 55,000 daily sales and still sells poorly in the city more than 25 years later ( around 12,000 ). <hl> It is unavailable in many parts of the city, as many newsagents refuse to stock it. It was revealed in a documentary called Alexei Sayle's Liverpool, aired in September 2008, that many Liverpudlians will not even take the newspaper for free, and those who do may simply burn or tear it up. Liverpudlians refer to the paper as 'The Scum' with campaigners believing it handicapped their fight for justice.

The front page caused outrage in Liverpool, where the paper lost more than three-quarters of its estimated 55,000 daily sales and still sells poorly in the city more than 25 years later (<hl> around 12,000 <hl>). It is unavailable in many parts of the city, as many newsagents refuse to stock it. It was revealed in a documentary called Alexei Sayle's Liverpool, aired in September 2008, that many Liverpudlians will not even take the newspaper for free, and those who do may simply burn or tear it up. Liverpudlians refer to the paper as 'The Scum' with campaigners believing it handicapped their fight for justice.

The front page caused outrage in Liverpool, where the paper lost more than three-quarters of its estimated 55,000 daily sales and still sells poorly in the city more than 25 years later ( <hl> around 12,000 <hl> ).


Question: What documentary aired in 2008?

Answer: Alexei Sayle's Liverpool

The front page caused outrage in Liverpool, where the paper lost more than three-quarters of its estimated 55,000 daily sales and still sells poorly in the city more than 25 years later (around 12,000). It is unavailable in many parts of the city, as many newsagents refuse to stock it. <hl> It was revealed in a documentary called Alexei Sayle's Liverpool , aired in September 2008, that many Liverpudlians will not even take the newspaper for free, and those who do may simply burn or tear it up. <hl> Liverpudlians refer to the paper as 'The Scum' with campaigners believing it handicapped their fight for justice.

The front page caused outrage in Liverpool, where the paper lost more than three-quarters of its estimated 55,000 daily sales and still sells poorly in the city more than 25 years later (around 12,000). It is unavailable in many parts of the city, as many newsagents refuse to stock it. It was revealed in a documentary called <hl> Alexei Sayle's Liverpool <hl>, aired in September 2008, that many Liverpudlians will not even take the newspaper for free, and those who do may simply burn or tear it up. Liverpudlians refer to the paper as 'The Scum' with campaigners believing it handicapped their fight for justice.

It was revealed in a documentary called <hl> Alexei Sayle's Liverpool <hl> , aired in September 2008, that many Liverpudlians will not even take the newspaper for free, and those who do may simply burn or tear it up.


Question: What do many Liverpool residents do with the paper even if given to them free?

Answer: simply burn or tear it up

The front page caused outrage in Liverpool, where the paper lost more than three-quarters of its estimated 55,000 daily sales and still sells poorly in the city more than 25 years later (around 12,000). It is unavailable in many parts of the city, as many newsagents refuse to stock it. <hl> It was revealed in a documentary called Alexei Sayle's Liverpool, aired in September 2008, that many Liverpudlians will not even take the newspaper for free, and those who do may simply burn or tear it up . <hl> Liverpudlians refer to the paper as 'The Scum' with campaigners believing it handicapped their fight for justice.

The front page caused outrage in Liverpool, where the paper lost more than three-quarters of its estimated 55,000 daily sales and still sells poorly in the city more than 25 years later (around 12,000). It is unavailable in many parts of the city, as many newsagents refuse to stock it. It was revealed in a documentary called Alexei Sayle's Liverpool, aired in September 2008, that many Liverpudlians will not even take the newspaper for free, and those who do may <hl> simply burn or tear it up <hl>. Liverpudlians refer to the paper as 'The Scum' with campaigners believing it handicapped their fight for justice.

It was revealed in a documentary called Alexei Sayle's Liverpool, aired in September 2008, that many Liverpudlians will not even take the newspaper for free, and those who do may <hl> simply burn or tear it up <hl> .


Question: What name have Liverpool residents given to The Sun?

Answer: The Scum'

The front page caused outrage in Liverpool, where the paper lost more than three-quarters of its estimated 55,000 daily sales and still sells poorly in the city more than 25 years later (around 12,000). It is unavailable in many parts of the city, as many newsagents refuse to stock it. It was revealed in a documentary called Alexei Sayle's Liverpool, aired in September 2008, that many Liverpudlians will not even take the newspaper for free, and those who do may simply burn or tear it up. <hl> Liverpudlians refer to the paper as ' The Scum' with campaigners believing it handicapped their fight for justice. <hl>

The front page caused outrage in Liverpool, where the paper lost more than three-quarters of its estimated 55,000 daily sales and still sells poorly in the city more than 25 years later (around 12,000). It is unavailable in many parts of the city, as many newsagents refuse to stock it. It was revealed in a documentary called Alexei Sayle's Liverpool, aired in September 2008, that many Liverpudlians will not even take the newspaper for free, and those who do may simply burn or tear it up. Liverpudlians refer to the paper as '<hl> The Scum' <hl> with campaigners believing it handicapped their fight for justice.

Liverpudlians refer to the paper as ' <hl> The Scum' <hl> with campaigners believing it handicapped their fight for justice.


Question: Which footballer was verbally attacked in Liverpool?

On 7 July 2004, in response to verbal attacks in Liverpool on Wayne Rooney, just before his transfer from Everton to Manchester United, who had sold his life story to The Sun, the paper devoted a full-page editorial to an apology for the "awful error" of its Hillsborough coverage and argued that Rooney (who was still only three years old at the time of Hillsborough) should not be punished for its "past sins". In January 2005, The Sun's managing editor Graham Dudman admitting the Hillsborough coverage was "the worst mistake in our history", added: "What we did was a terrible mistake. It was a terrible, insensitive, horrible article, with a dreadful headline; but what we'd also say is: we have apologised for it, and the entire senior team here now is completely different from the team that put the paper out in 1989."

Answer: Wayne Rooney

<hl> On 7 July 2004, in response to verbal attacks in Liverpool on Wayne Rooney , just before his transfer from Everton to Manchester United, who had sold his life story to The Sun, the paper devoted a full-page editorial to an apology for the "awful error" of its Hillsborough coverage and argued that Rooney (who was still only three years old at the time of Hillsborough) should not be punished for its "past sins". <hl> In January 2005, The Sun's managing editor Graham Dudman admitting the Hillsborough coverage was "the worst mistake in our history", added: "What we did was a terrible mistake. It was a terrible, insensitive, horrible article, with a dreadful headline; but what we'd also say is: we have apologised for it, and the entire senior team here now is completely different from the team that put the paper out in 1989."

On 7 July 2004, in response to verbal attacks in Liverpool on <hl> Wayne Rooney <hl>, just before his transfer from Everton to Manchester United, who had sold his life story to The Sun, the paper devoted a full-page editorial to an apology for the "awful error" of its Hillsborough coverage and argued that Rooney (who was still only three years old at the time of Hillsborough) should not be punished for its "past sins". In January 2005, The Sun's managing editor Graham Dudman admitting the Hillsborough coverage was "the worst mistake in our history", added: "What we did was a terrible mistake. It was a terrible, insensitive, horrible article, with a dreadful headline; but what we'd also say is: we have apologised for it, and the entire senior team here now is completely different from the team that put the paper out in 1989."

On 7 July 2004, in response to verbal attacks in Liverpool on <hl> Wayne Rooney <hl> , just before his transfer from Everton to Manchester United, who had sold his life story to The Sun, the paper devoted a full-page editorial to an apology for the "awful error" of its Hillsborough coverage and argued that Rooney (who was still only three years old at the time of Hillsborough) should not be punished for its "past sins".


Question: What team did Rooney transfer to?

Answer: Manchester United

<hl> On 7 July 2004, in response to verbal attacks in Liverpool on Wayne Rooney, just before his transfer from Everton to Manchester United , who had sold his life story to The Sun, the paper devoted a full-page editorial to an apology for the "awful error" of its Hillsborough coverage and argued that Rooney (who was still only three years old at the time of Hillsborough) should not be punished for its "past sins". <hl> In January 2005, The Sun's managing editor Graham Dudman admitting the Hillsborough coverage was "the worst mistake in our history", added: "What we did was a terrible mistake. It was a terrible, insensitive, horrible article, with a dreadful headline; but what we'd also say is: we have apologised for it, and the entire senior team here now is completely different from the team that put the paper out in 1989."

On 7 July 2004, in response to verbal attacks in Liverpool on Wayne Rooney, just before his transfer from Everton to <hl> Manchester United <hl>, who had sold his life story to The Sun, the paper devoted a full-page editorial to an apology for the "awful error" of its Hillsborough coverage and argued that Rooney (who was still only three years old at the time of Hillsborough) should not be punished for its "past sins". In January 2005, The Sun's managing editor Graham Dudman admitting the Hillsborough coverage was "the worst mistake in our history", added: "What we did was a terrible mistake. It was a terrible, insensitive, horrible article, with a dreadful headline; but what we'd also say is: we have apologised for it, and the entire senior team here now is completely different from the team that put the paper out in 1989."

On 7 July 2004, in response to verbal attacks in Liverpool on Wayne Rooney, just before his transfer from Everton to <hl> Manchester United <hl> , who had sold his life story to The Sun, the paper devoted a full-page editorial to an apology for the "awful error" of its Hillsborough coverage and argued that Rooney (who was still only three years old at the time of Hillsborough) should not be punished for its "past sins".


Question: What was Rooney's age at the time of the Hillsborough disaster?

Answer: three years old

<hl> On 7 July 2004, in response to verbal attacks in Liverpool on Wayne Rooney, just before his transfer from Everton to Manchester United, who had sold his life story to The Sun, the paper devoted a full-page editorial to an apology for the "awful error" of its Hillsborough coverage and argued that Rooney (who was still only three years old at the time of Hillsborough) should not be punished for its "past sins". <hl> In January 2005, The Sun's managing editor Graham Dudman admitting the Hillsborough coverage was "the worst mistake in our history", added: "What we did was a terrible mistake. It was a terrible, insensitive, horrible article, with a dreadful headline; but what we'd also say is: we have apologised for it, and the entire senior team here now is completely different from the team that put the paper out in 1989."

On 7 July 2004, in response to verbal attacks in Liverpool on Wayne Rooney, just before his transfer from Everton to Manchester United, who had sold his life story to The Sun, the paper devoted a full-page editorial to an apology for the "awful error" of its Hillsborough coverage and argued that Rooney (who was still only <hl> three years old <hl> at the time of Hillsborough) should not be punished for its "past sins". In January 2005, The Sun's managing editor Graham Dudman admitting the Hillsborough coverage was "the worst mistake in our history", added: "What we did was a terrible mistake. It was a terrible, insensitive, horrible article, with a dreadful headline; but what we'd also say is: we have apologised for it, and the entire senior team here now is completely different from the team that put the paper out in 1989."


Question: Who was managing editor of The Sun in 2005?

Answer: Graham Dudman

On 7 July 2004, in response to verbal attacks in Liverpool on Wayne Rooney, just before his transfer from Everton to Manchester United, who had sold his life story to The Sun, the paper devoted a full-page editorial to an apology for the "awful error" of its Hillsborough coverage and argued that Rooney (who was still only three years old at the time of Hillsborough) should not be punished for its "past sins". <hl> In January 2005, The Sun's managing editor Graham Dudman admitting the Hillsborough coverage was "the worst mistake in our history", added: "What we did was a terrible mistake. <hl> It was a terrible, insensitive, horrible article, with a dreadful headline; but what we'd also say is: we have apologised for it, and the entire senior team here now is completely different from the team that put the paper out in 1989."

On 7 July 2004, in response to verbal attacks in Liverpool on Wayne Rooney, just before his transfer from Everton to Manchester United, who had sold his life story to The Sun, the paper devoted a full-page editorial to an apology for the "awful error" of its Hillsborough coverage and argued that Rooney (who was still only three years old at the time of Hillsborough) should not be punished for its "past sins". In January 2005, The Sun's managing editor <hl> Graham Dudman <hl> admitting the Hillsborough coverage was "the worst mistake in our history", added: "What we did was a terrible mistake. It was a terrible, insensitive, horrible article, with a dreadful headline; but what we'd also say is: we have apologised for it, and the entire senior team here now is completely different from the team that put the paper out in 1989."


Question: How did Dudman describe The Sun's Hillsborough coverage?

Answer: "the worst mistake in our history"

On 7 July 2004, in response to verbal attacks in Liverpool on Wayne Rooney, just before his transfer from Everton to Manchester United, who had sold his life story to The Sun, the paper devoted a full-page editorial to an apology for the "awful error" of its Hillsborough coverage and argued that Rooney (who was still only three years old at the time of Hillsborough) should not be punished for its "past sins". <hl> In January 2005, The Sun's managing editor Graham Dudman admitting the Hillsborough coverage was "the worst mistake in our history" , added: "What we did was a terrible mistake. <hl> It was a terrible, insensitive, horrible article, with a dreadful headline; but what we'd also say is: we have apologised for it, and the entire senior team here now is completely different from the team that put the paper out in 1989."

On 7 July 2004, in response to verbal attacks in Liverpool on Wayne Rooney, just before his transfer from Everton to Manchester United, who had sold his life story to The Sun, the paper devoted a full-page editorial to an apology for the "awful error" of its Hillsborough coverage and argued that Rooney (who was still only three years old at the time of Hillsborough) should not be punished for its "past sins". In January 2005, The Sun's managing editor Graham Dudman admitting the Hillsborough coverage was <hl> "the worst mistake in our history" <hl>, added: "What we did was a terrible mistake. It was a terrible, insensitive, horrible article, with a dreadful headline; but what we'd also say is: we have apologised for it, and the entire senior team here now is completely different from the team that put the paper out in 1989."

In January 2005, The Sun's managing editor Graham Dudman admitting the Hillsborough coverage was <hl> "the worst mistake in our history" <hl> , added: "What we did was a terrible mistake.


Question: When did Margaret Thatcher leave office?

The Sun remained loyal to Thatcher right up to her resignation in November 1990, despite the party's fall in popularity over the previous year following the introduction of the Poll tax (officially known as the Community Charge). This change to the way local government is funded was vociferously supported by the newspaper, despite widespread opposition, (some from Conservative MPs), which is seen as having contributed to Thatcher's own downfall. The tax was quickly repealed by her successor John Major, whom The Sun initially supported enthusiastically, believing he was a radical Thatcherite – despite the economy having entered recession at this time.

Answer: November 1990

<hl> The Sun remained loyal to Thatcher right up to her resignation in November 1990 , despite the party's fall in popularity over the previous year following the introduction of the Poll tax (officially known as the Community Charge). <hl> This change to the way local government is funded was vociferously supported by the newspaper, despite widespread opposition, (some from Conservative MPs), which is seen as having contributed to Thatcher's own downfall. The tax was quickly repealed by her successor John Major, whom The Sun initially supported enthusiastically, believing he was a radical Thatcherite – despite the economy having entered recession at this time.

The Sun remained loyal to Thatcher right up to her resignation in <hl> November 1990 <hl>, despite the party's fall in popularity over the previous year following the introduction of the Poll tax (officially known as the Community Charge). This change to the way local government is funded was vociferously supported by the newspaper, despite widespread opposition, (some from Conservative MPs), which is seen as having contributed to Thatcher's own downfall. The tax was quickly repealed by her successor John Major, whom The Sun initially supported enthusiastically, believing he was a radical Thatcherite – despite the economy having entered recession at this time.

The Sun remained loyal to Thatcher right up to her resignation in <hl> November 1990 <hl> , despite the party's fall in popularity over the previous year following the introduction of the Poll tax (officially known as the Community Charge).


Question: What is another name for the Community Charge?

Answer: Poll tax

<hl> The Sun remained loyal to Thatcher right up to her resignation in November 1990, despite the party's fall in popularity over the previous year following the introduction of the Poll tax (officially known as the Community Charge). <hl> This change to the way local government is funded was vociferously supported by the newspaper, despite widespread opposition, (some from Conservative MPs), which is seen as having contributed to Thatcher's own downfall. The tax was quickly repealed by her successor John Major, whom The Sun initially supported enthusiastically, believing he was a radical Thatcherite – despite the economy having entered recession at this time.

The Sun remained loyal to Thatcher right up to her resignation in November 1990, despite the party's fall in popularity over the previous year following the introduction of the <hl> Poll tax <hl> (officially known as the Community Charge). This change to the way local government is funded was vociferously supported by the newspaper, despite widespread opposition, (some from Conservative MPs), which is seen as having contributed to Thatcher's own downfall. The tax was quickly repealed by her successor John Major, whom The Sun initially supported enthusiastically, believing he was a radical Thatcherite – despite the economy having entered recession at this time.


Question: Who took over for Thatcher?

Answer: John Major

The Sun remained loyal to Thatcher right up to her resignation in November 1990, despite the party's fall in popularity over the previous year following the introduction of the Poll tax (officially known as the Community Charge). This change to the way local government is funded was vociferously supported by the newspaper, despite widespread opposition, (some from Conservative MPs), which is seen as having contributed to Thatcher's own downfall. <hl> The tax was quickly repealed by her successor John Major , whom The Sun initially supported enthusiastically, believing he was a radical Thatcherite – despite the economy having entered recession at this time. <hl>

The Sun remained loyal to Thatcher right up to her resignation in November 1990, despite the party's fall in popularity over the previous year following the introduction of the Poll tax (officially known as the Community Charge). This change to the way local government is funded was vociferously supported by the newspaper, despite widespread opposition, (some from Conservative MPs), which is seen as having contributed to Thatcher's own downfall. The tax was quickly repealed by her successor <hl> John Major <hl>, whom The Sun initially supported enthusiastically, believing he was a radical Thatcherite – despite the economy having entered recession at this time.

The tax was quickly repealed by her successor <hl> John Major <hl> , whom The Sun initially supported enthusiastically, believing he was a radical Thatcherite – despite the economy having entered recession at this time.


Question: Who opposed the poll tax?

Answer: Conservative MPs

The Sun remained loyal to Thatcher right up to her resignation in November 1990, despite the party's fall in popularity over the previous year following the introduction of the Poll tax (officially known as the Community Charge). <hl> This change to the way local government is funded was vociferously supported by the newspaper, despite widespread opposition, (some from Conservative MPs ), which is seen as having contributed to Thatcher's own downfall. <hl> The tax was quickly repealed by her successor John Major, whom The Sun initially supported enthusiastically, believing he was a radical Thatcherite – despite the economy having entered recession at this time.

The Sun remained loyal to Thatcher right up to her resignation in November 1990, despite the party's fall in popularity over the previous year following the introduction of the Poll tax (officially known as the Community Charge). This change to the way local government is funded was vociferously supported by the newspaper, despite widespread opposition, (some from <hl> Conservative MPs <hl>), which is seen as having contributed to Thatcher's own downfall. The tax was quickly repealed by her successor John Major, whom The Sun initially supported enthusiastically, believing he was a radical Thatcherite – despite the economy having entered recession at this time.

This change to the way local government is funded was vociferously supported by the newspaper, despite widespread opposition, (some from <hl> Conservative MPs <hl> ), which is seen as having contributed to Thatcher's own downfall.


Question: How did The Sun feel about the Poll tax?

Answer: was vociferously supported by the newspaper

The Sun remained loyal to Thatcher right up to her resignation in November 1990, despite the party's fall in popularity over the previous year following the introduction of the Poll tax (officially known as the Community Charge). <hl> This change to the way local government is funded was vociferously supported by the newspaper , despite widespread opposition, (some from Conservative MPs), which is seen as having contributed to Thatcher's own downfall. <hl> The tax was quickly repealed by her successor John Major, whom The Sun initially supported enthusiastically, believing he was a radical Thatcherite – despite the economy having entered recession at this time.

The Sun remained loyal to Thatcher right up to her resignation in November 1990, despite the party's fall in popularity over the previous year following the introduction of the Poll tax (officially known as the Community Charge). This change to the way local government is funded <hl> was vociferously supported by the newspaper <hl>, despite widespread opposition, (some from Conservative MPs), which is seen as having contributed to Thatcher's own downfall. The tax was quickly repealed by her successor John Major, whom The Sun initially supported enthusiastically, believing he was a radical Thatcherite – despite the economy having entered recession at this time.

This change to the way local government is funded <hl> was vociferously supported by the newspaper <hl> , despite widespread opposition, (some from Conservative MPs), which is seen as having contributed to Thatcher's own downfall.


Question: What types of policies did The Sun support?

Despite its initial opposition to the closures, until 1997, the newspaper repeatedly called for the implementation of further Thatcherite policies, such as Royal Mail privatisation,[verification needed] and social security cutbacks, with leaders such as "Peter Lilley is right, we can't carry on like this",[verification needed] The paper showed hostility to the EU and approval of public spending cuts, tax cuts, and promotion of right-wing ministers to the cabinet, with leaders such as "More of the Redwood, not Deadwood".

Answer: Thatcherite policies

<hl> Despite its initial opposition to the closures, until 1997, the newspaper repeatedly called for the implementation of further Thatcherite policies , such as Royal Mail privatisation,[verification needed] and social security cutbacks, with leaders such as "Peter Lilley is right, we can't carry on like this",[verification needed] The paper showed hostility to the EU and approval of public spending cuts, tax cuts, and promotion of right-wing ministers to the cabinet, with leaders such as "More of the Redwood, not Deadwood". <hl>

Despite its initial opposition to the closures, until 1997, the newspaper repeatedly called for the implementation of further <hl> Thatcherite policies <hl>, such as Royal Mail privatisation,[verification needed] and social security cutbacks, with leaders such as "Peter Lilley is right, we can't carry on like this",[verification needed] The paper showed hostility to the EU and approval of public spending cuts, tax cuts, and promotion of right-wing ministers to the cabinet, with leaders such as "More of the Redwood, not Deadwood".

Despite its initial opposition to the closures, until 1997, the newspaper repeatedly called for the implementation of further <hl> Thatcherite policies <hl> , such as Royal Mail privatisation,[verification needed] and social security cutbacks, with leaders such as "Peter Lilley is right, we can't carry on like this",[verification needed] The paper showed hostility to the EU and approval of public spending cuts, tax cuts, and promotion of right-wing ministers to the cabinet, with leaders such as "More of the Redwood, not Deadwood".


Question: What is an example of a Thatcherite policy?

Answer: Royal Mail privatisation

<hl> Despite its initial opposition to the closures, until 1997, the newspaper repeatedly called for the implementation of further Thatcherite policies, such as Royal Mail privatisation ,[verification needed] and social security cutbacks, with leaders such as "Peter Lilley is right, we can't carry on like this",[verification needed] The paper showed hostility to the EU and approval of public spending cuts, tax cuts, and promotion of right-wing ministers to the cabinet, with leaders such as "More of the Redwood, not Deadwood". <hl>

Despite its initial opposition to the closures, until 1997, the newspaper repeatedly called for the implementation of further Thatcherite policies, such as <hl> Royal Mail privatisation <hl>,[verification needed] and social security cutbacks, with leaders such as "Peter Lilley is right, we can't carry on like this",[verification needed] The paper showed hostility to the EU and approval of public spending cuts, tax cuts, and promotion of right-wing ministers to the cabinet, with leaders such as "More of the Redwood, not Deadwood".

Despite its initial opposition to the closures, until 1997, the newspaper repeatedly called for the implementation of further Thatcherite policies, such as <hl> Royal Mail privatisation <hl> ,[verification needed] and social security cutbacks, with leaders such as "Peter Lilley is right, we can't carry on like this",[verification needed] The paper showed hostility to the EU and approval of public spending cuts, tax cuts, and promotion of right-wing ministers to the cabinet, with leaders such as "More of the Redwood, not Deadwood".


Question: What was The Sun's stance toward the EU?

Answer: The paper showed hostility

<hl> Despite its initial opposition to the closures, until 1997, the newspaper repeatedly called for the implementation of further Thatcherite policies, such as Royal Mail privatisation,[verification needed] and social security cutbacks, with leaders such as "Peter Lilley is right, we can't carry on like this",[verification needed] The paper showed hostility to the EU and approval of public spending cuts, tax cuts, and promotion of right-wing ministers to the cabinet, with leaders such as "More of the Redwood, not Deadwood". <hl>

Despite its initial opposition to the closures, until 1997, the newspaper repeatedly called for the implementation of further Thatcherite policies, such as Royal Mail privatisation,[verification needed] and social security cutbacks, with leaders such as "Peter Lilley is right, we can't carry on like this",[verification needed] <hl> The paper showed hostility <hl> to the EU and approval of public spending cuts, tax cuts, and promotion of right-wing ministers to the cabinet, with leaders such as "More of the Redwood, not Deadwood".


Question: What's another thing the paper showed hostility to?

Answer: promotion of right-wing ministers to the cabinet

<hl> Despite its initial opposition to the closures, until 1997, the newspaper repeatedly called for the implementation of further Thatcherite policies, such as Royal Mail privatisation,[verification needed] and social security cutbacks, with leaders such as "Peter Lilley is right, we can't carry on like this",[verification needed] The paper showed hostility to the EU and approval of public spending cuts, tax cuts, and promotion of right-wing ministers to the cabinet , with leaders such as "More of the Redwood, not Deadwood". <hl>

Despite its initial opposition to the closures, until 1997, the newspaper repeatedly called for the implementation of further Thatcherite policies, such as Royal Mail privatisation,[verification needed] and social security cutbacks, with leaders such as "Peter Lilley is right, we can't carry on like this",[verification needed] The paper showed hostility to the EU and approval of public spending cuts, tax cuts, and <hl> promotion of right-wing ministers to the cabinet <hl>, with leaders such as "More of the Redwood, not Deadwood".

Despite its initial opposition to the closures, until 1997, the newspaper repeatedly called for the implementation of further Thatcherite policies, such as Royal Mail privatisation,[verification needed] and social security cutbacks, with leaders such as "Peter Lilley is right, we can't carry on like this",[verification needed] The paper showed hostility to the EU and approval of public spending cuts, tax cuts, and <hl> promotion of right-wing ministers to the cabinet <hl> , with leaders such as "More of the Redwood, not Deadwood".


Question: What was The Sun's initial stance toward the closures?

Answer: opposition

<hl> Despite its initial opposition to the closures, until 1997, the newspaper repeatedly called for the implementation of further Thatcherite policies, such as Royal Mail privatisation,[verification needed] and social security cutbacks, with leaders such as "Peter Lilley is right, we can't carry on like this",[verification needed] The paper showed hostility to the EU and approval of public spending cuts, tax cuts, and promotion of right-wing ministers to the cabinet, with leaders such as "More of the Redwood, not Deadwood". <hl>

Despite its initial <hl> opposition <hl> to the closures, until 1997, the newspaper repeatedly called for the implementation of further Thatcherite policies, such as Royal Mail privatisation,[verification needed] and social security cutbacks, with leaders such as "Peter Lilley is right, we can't carry on like this",[verification needed] The paper showed hostility to the EU and approval of public spending cuts, tax cuts, and promotion of right-wing ministers to the cabinet, with leaders such as "More of the Redwood, not Deadwood".


Question: Who did The Sun declare political endorsement of in 1997?

The Sun switched support to the Labour party on 18 March 1997, six weeks before the General Election victory which saw the New Labour leader Tony Blair become Prime Minister with a large parliamentary majority, despite the paper having attacked Blair and New Labour up to a month earlier. Its front page headline read THE SUN BACKS BLAIR and its front page editorial made clear that while it still opposed some New Labour policies, such as the Minimum Wage and Devolution, it believed Blair to be "the breath of fresh air this great country needs". John Major's Conservatives, it said, were "tired, divided and rudderless". Blair, who had radically altered his party's image and policies, noting the influence the paper could have over its readers' political thinking, had courted it (and Murdoch) for some time by granting exclusive interviews and writing columns.

Answer: Labour party

<hl> The Sun switched support to the Labour party on 18 March 1997, six weeks before the General Election victory which saw the New Labour leader Tony Blair become Prime Minister with a large parliamentary majority, despite the paper having attacked Blair and New Labour up to a month earlier. <hl> Its front page headline read THE SUN BACKS BLAIR and its front page editorial made clear that while it still opposed some New Labour policies, such as the Minimum Wage and Devolution, it believed Blair to be "the breath of fresh air this great country needs". John Major's Conservatives, it said, were "tired, divided and rudderless". Blair, who had radically altered his party's image and policies, noting the influence the paper could have over its readers' political thinking, had courted it (and Murdoch) for some time by granting exclusive interviews and writing columns.

The Sun switched support to the <hl> Labour party <hl> on 18 March 1997, six weeks before the General Election victory which saw the New Labour leader Tony Blair become Prime Minister with a large parliamentary majority, despite the paper having attacked Blair and New Labour up to a month earlier. Its front page headline read THE SUN BACKS BLAIR and its front page editorial made clear that while it still opposed some New Labour policies, such as the Minimum Wage and Devolution, it believed Blair to be "the breath of fresh air this great country needs". John Major's Conservatives, it said, were "tired, divided and rudderless". Blair, who had radically altered his party's image and policies, noting the influence the paper could have over its readers' political thinking, had courted it (and Murdoch) for some time by granting exclusive interviews and writing columns.


Question: Who became Prime Minister in 1997?

Answer: Tony Blair

<hl> The Sun switched support to the Labour party on 18 March 1997, six weeks before the General Election victory which saw the New Labour leader Tony Blair become Prime Minister with a large parliamentary majority, despite the paper having attacked Blair and New Labour up to a month earlier. <hl> Its front page headline read THE SUN BACKS BLAIR and its front page editorial made clear that while it still opposed some New Labour policies, such as the Minimum Wage and Devolution, it believed Blair to be "the breath of fresh air this great country needs". John Major's Conservatives, it said, were "tired, divided and rudderless". Blair, who had radically altered his party's image and policies, noting the influence the paper could have over its readers' political thinking, had courted it (and Murdoch) for some time by granting exclusive interviews and writing columns.

The Sun switched support to the Labour party on 18 March 1997, six weeks before the General Election victory which saw the New Labour leader <hl> Tony Blair <hl> become Prime Minister with a large parliamentary majority, despite the paper having attacked Blair and New Labour up to a month earlier. Its front page headline read THE SUN BACKS BLAIR and its front page editorial made clear that while it still opposed some New Labour policies, such as the Minimum Wage and Devolution, it believed Blair to be "the breath of fresh air this great country needs". John Major's Conservatives, it said, were "tired, divided and rudderless". Blair, who had radically altered his party's image and policies, noting the influence the paper could have over its readers' political thinking, had courted it (and Murdoch) for some time by granting exclusive interviews and writing columns.


Question: Which New Labour policies did The Sun oppose?

Answer: Minimum Wage and Devolution

The Sun switched support to the Labour party on 18 March 1997, six weeks before the General Election victory which saw the New Labour leader Tony Blair become Prime Minister with a large parliamentary majority, despite the paper having attacked Blair and New Labour up to a month earlier. <hl> Its front page headline read THE SUN BACKS BLAIR and its front page editorial made clear that while it still opposed some New Labour policies, such as the Minimum Wage and Devolution , it believed Blair to be "the breath of fresh air this great country needs". <hl> John Major's Conservatives, it said, were "tired, divided and rudderless". Blair, who had radically altered his party's image and policies, noting the influence the paper could have over its readers' political thinking, had courted it (and Murdoch) for some time by granting exclusive interviews and writing columns.

The Sun switched support to the Labour party on 18 March 1997, six weeks before the General Election victory which saw the New Labour leader Tony Blair become Prime Minister with a large parliamentary majority, despite the paper having attacked Blair and New Labour up to a month earlier. Its front page headline read THE SUN BACKS BLAIR and its front page editorial made clear that while it still opposed some New Labour policies, such as the <hl> Minimum Wage and Devolution <hl>, it believed Blair to be "the breath of fresh air this great country needs". John Major's Conservatives, it said, were "tired, divided and rudderless". Blair, who had radically altered his party's image and policies, noting the influence the paper could have over its readers' political thinking, had courted it (and Murdoch) for some time by granting exclusive interviews and writing columns.

Its front page headline read THE SUN BACKS BLAIR and its front page editorial made clear that while it still opposed some New Labour policies, such as the <hl> Minimum Wage and Devolution <hl> , it believed Blair to be "the breath of fresh air this great country needs".


Question: How did The Sun describe John Major's Conservatives?

Answer: "tired, divided and rudderless"

The Sun switched support to the Labour party on 18 March 1997, six weeks before the General Election victory which saw the New Labour leader Tony Blair become Prime Minister with a large parliamentary majority, despite the paper having attacked Blair and New Labour up to a month earlier. Its front page headline read THE SUN BACKS BLAIR and its front page editorial made clear that while it still opposed some New Labour policies, such as the Minimum Wage and Devolution, it believed Blair to be "the breath of fresh air this great country needs". <hl> John Major's Conservatives, it said, were "tired, divided and rudderless" . <hl> Blair, who had radically altered his party's image and policies, noting the influence the paper could have over its readers' political thinking, had courted it (and Murdoch) for some time by granting exclusive interviews and writing columns.

The Sun switched support to the Labour party on 18 March 1997, six weeks before the General Election victory which saw the New Labour leader Tony Blair become Prime Minister with a large parliamentary majority, despite the paper having attacked Blair and New Labour up to a month earlier. Its front page headline read THE SUN BACKS BLAIR and its front page editorial made clear that while it still opposed some New Labour policies, such as the Minimum Wage and Devolution, it believed Blair to be "the breath of fresh air this great country needs". John Major's Conservatives, it said, were <hl> "tired, divided and rudderless" <hl>. Blair, who had radically altered his party's image and policies, noting the influence the paper could have over its readers' political thinking, had courted it (and Murdoch) for some time by granting exclusive interviews and writing columns.

John Major's Conservatives, it said, were <hl> "tired, divided and rudderless" <hl> .


Question: Who greatly changed the image of the Labour party?

Answer: Blair

<hl> The Sun switched support to the Labour party on 18 March 1997, six weeks before the General Election victory which saw the New Labour leader Tony Blair become Prime Minister with a large parliamentary majority, despite the paper having attacked Blair and New Labour up to a month earlier. <hl> Its front page headline read THE SUN BACKS BLAIR and its front page editorial made clear that while it still opposed some New Labour policies, such as the Minimum Wage and Devolution, it believed Blair to be "the breath of fresh air this great country needs". John Major's Conservatives, it said, were "tired, divided and rudderless". Blair, who had radically altered his party's image and policies, noting the influence the paper could have over its readers' political thinking, had courted it (and Murdoch) for some time by granting exclusive interviews and writing columns.

The Sun switched support to the Labour party on 18 March 1997, six weeks before the General Election victory which saw the New Labour leader Tony <hl> Blair <hl> become Prime Minister with a large parliamentary majority, despite the paper having attacked Blair and New Labour up to a month earlier. Its front page headline read THE SUN BACKS BLAIR and its front page editorial made clear that while it still opposed some New Labour policies, such as the Minimum Wage and Devolution, it believed Blair to be "the breath of fresh air this great country needs". John Major's Conservatives, it said, were "tired, divided and rudderless". Blair, who had radically altered his party's image and policies, noting the influence the paper could have over its readers' political thinking, had courted it (and Murdoch) for some time by granting exclusive interviews and writing columns.