As Five Chinese Crackers says.

Imagine this. You’re a newspaper editor and a major international incident is unfolding. Sketchy details start to emerge about people involved in the incident, but they’re very sketchy and far from being confirmed. Reporting the details could cause problems with a demonised section of society at home, but if they’re true the details are quite shocking. How do you break these sketchy, unconfirmed and unclearly sourced possibilities to your readership? What’s the ethical way to do it?

So the press do this

And the reality – The BBC reports No evidence of UK Mumbai link.

A top Indian official has said there was “no authentic information” to suggest that any British citizens were involved in the Mumbai attacks.

Maharashtra state chief minister Vilasrao Deshmukh said he “totally denied” reports.

Gordon Brown said he had spoken to India’s prime minister, who “at no point” suggested there was evidence of any terrorist of British origins.

What happened to checking the facts? You know, you can’t believe a word they print.