)
Click the image for an enlarged readable version.
I was first attracted to the paper by the sophisticated front page though I thought the colours garish. The article on David Kelly particularly interested me as it was something I was suspicious of at the time and an issue not raised by any of the other nationals. The standard lighthearted page 3 article was not newsworthy, and I personally do not care about Mr. Cameron's baby or his exercise regime. I felt this article was better suited to The Daily Mail, which also gave it a page lead. I was thoroughly engrossed by all of the double-page spreads, especially the cricket scandal. Speaking to Mohammad Amir's family was a good idea and the interview really was superb. I enjoyed the headline on Ed Milliband, however I did feel it held an element of bias. As a recent graduate and partygoer, I found the Ibiza section very entertaining and I enjoyed the fact boxes running along the top of the spread. As a huge fan of the cartoons and sketches, I laughed a lot at the cartoon on page 21 and it fitted in nicely with the extensive coverage of Stephen Hawking's book. I was slightly offended by the headline for the fact box about the European hub for Saddam Hussein's arms purchasing: "Relocation, Relocation" was simply not appropriate. But I loved the "lumberjack" fashion feature on boys wearing check shirts - hilarious.
What did we get wrong? What did we get right? Send your 250-word review of today's paper by 3pm to YouThe Editor(at)thetimes.co.uk
(Reproduced from Page 21 of the print edition of The Times of 6 September 2010)