Cabinet locked in bitter row as Ed Miliband and key ally try to block £49billion plans for third runway at Heathrow
Findings are available in the analysis below.4 findings
We do not republish articles from Daily Mail. Our findings are below, each quoting the words it is about. Read the full article on the outlet's own site.
The Daily Mail reports a Cabinet split over a third Heathrow runway but never gives the opposing ministers' case, quoting only unnamed sources who dismiss them, and in its own voice says those two ministers triggered the row. It sets the dispute up as green issues against growth without saying what the runway would mean for emissions. It also puts a judgement on the Prime Minister's competence in the mouths of unnamed critics, backed by one anonymous Whitehall source.
NewsCord staff selected this article for review and pointed the model at passages to examine. Every finding quotes the article.
One side gets the space
Minor
“Ed's the Foreign Secretary so it's not really his lookout.”
Why this matters
The article quotes a senior Labour source dismissing Mr Miliband, after telling the reader he 'slapped down' the Foreign Secretary.
The impression it gives
A reader comes away thinking Mr Miliband's objection is simply out of place and not worth hearing.
The context
The article never quotes Mr Miliband, Ms Fahnbulleh or anyone on their side. It gives no reason for their opposition beyond the bare statement that they oppose it.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“have made clear their opposition to the expansion”
“we are too broke for Net Zero”
Why this matters
An anonymous No10 source's line ends the passage on Rosebank and the Energy Secretary, with nothing after it.
The impression it gives
A reader takes net zero as an unaffordable luxury that the Government has to drop.
The context
The article says nothing about what cutting emissions is for or what failing to cut them costs. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is what limits further warming.
How we know
On the recordCutting greenhouse gas emissions is what limits further warming, and every increment of warming avoided reduces harm.ipcc.ch (opens in a new tab)
Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “emissions” and “warming”.
Leaves out what changes the picture
Minor
“those in favour of green issues and those who want to push for growth instead”
Why this matters
The article reduces the dispute to 'green issues' against growth and never says what is green about the objection.
The impression it gives
A reader thinks the opponents hold a vague preference set against the economy.
The context
The article never mentions the runway's effect on emissions, on the climate or on the UK's carbon targets, which is the substance of a green objection to airport expansion. Cutting emissions is what limits further warming.
How we know
On the recordCutting greenhouse gas emissions is what limits further warming, and every increment of warming avoided reduces harm.ipcc.ch (opens in a new tab)
Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “climate” and “carbon”.
Leans on unnamed critics
Minor
“Critics have raised concerns that the PM is too 'out of his depth' on this issue to make up his mind.”
Why this matters
The article puts a judgement on the Prime Minister's competence in the mouths of plural, unnamed 'critics'.
The impression it gives
A reader thinks several people have publicly questioned whether Mr Burnham can handle the decision.
The context
The only support the article gives is one anonymous Whitehall source.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“A Whitehall source told the MoS on Saturday night”
“Critics say this is the latest edition of a familiar split in Cabinet of the environment versus the economy.”
Why this matters
Unnamed 'critics' set the environment against the economy as two opposing camps.
The impression it gives
A reader accepts that protecting the climate and growing the economy are opposites.
The context
No critic is named or quoted. The article offers nothing on what climate harm costs the economy.
Uses a loaded word
Minor
“have triggered the blazing row at the heart of the Government”
Why this matters
In its own voice the article puts the blame for the row on the two ministers who oppose the runway.
The impression it gives
A reader thinks Mr Miliband and Ms Fahnbulleh caused the dispute.
The context
The article's own reporting shows the Transport Secretary lobbying hard on the other side, so the row has two sides.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“to lobby him to approve the development against the wishes of other Cabinet ministers”
What it gets right
“warning that it could not come at the 'expense of essential investment in northern infrastructure'”
It gives Mr Burnham's own on-record words about the runway, not only anonymous claims about his view.
“Downing Street declined to comment on Saturday night.”
It tells the reader that Downing Street was approached and did not respond.