TITULARES ALTERNATIVOS que los medios de comunicación habrían podido elegir para encabezar sus informaciones y análisis sobre el resultado en el Reino Unido de las recientes elecciones europeas, si -como ya hicieron con los comicios locales celebrados el mismo día- hubieran atendido a los datos reales y no a sus impresiones personales no contrastadas:

"Three Pro-War British parties take 67% of vote, push anti-war party to fourth place"; or

"New anti-EU party displaces Liberal Democrats as Britain's Third Party"; or

"British Voters Back War but Punish Blair over Europe"; or

"Liberal Democrats Play Anti-War Card with Meager Results; or

"Britain: Only European Country with Pro-War Government *and* opposition party, now sees rise of third pro-war party, eclipsing antiwar party."

Más en Chicago Boyz (via Glenn Reynolds)

Ya lo comentaba Arthur Chrenkoff a propósito del enfoque de la Associated Press ("European voters punished leaders in Britain, Italy and the Netherlands for getting involved in Iraq - but also turned their ire on the war's chief opponents German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac over local issues, projections showed Sunday."):

Isn't it nice how the pro-war leaders are punished for their pro-war stance, whereas anti-war leaders are punished over "local issues"? There obviously aren't any local issues in Great Britain, Italy and the Netherlands, but plenty in Germany and France.

Y James Taranto coincidía:

"So let's see if we have this straight: When pro-war parties do badly in elections, it's because voters are antiwar. When antiwar parties do badly--as in Germany and France--it's because of . . . well, who knows?"