Dissent, Narrative and Graphic Design:

How design elements interact with narrative in online news stories

News outlets, of course, do more than just present an annal of facts. They present a narrativizing context for the telling of a story that appears objective, but is often far from unbiased. Conventionally, the narrativization of facts rests solely in the text of a news article, where the author tells his own version of a story through an ostensibly objective lens. This is, however, only a part of the way news articles create their stories. The medium, presentation and design elements encompassing the article build upon the text and strengthen the narrativizing context, sometimes even changing the story entirely. These surrounding elements are not outside of the narrative, but an often-overlooked part of the narrative itself. In new media outlets, namely the internet, the extratextual factors weigh in especially heavily due to their ability to aggregate content and the immediacy of their nature. In these online situations, the textual story combines with its surrounding elements to reinforce the narrative and present itself as a complete and informed narrativized account.

Oral news and fiction stories have minimal influence from physical extratextual factors, but the written form of the story complicates the matter. This is true with any news story, whether it's online or printed in a newspaper or magazine, but analyzing the story’s online manifestation proves the most complex. The print medium is very much a one-way communication that draws a reader in, with no intention of letting her respond. The reader also invests a great deal more in the printed piece, from the purchase of a newspaper to the time it takes to sit down and read it. Conversely, online newspapers are instantaneous. Costs are lower, attention spans are shorter, there can be more content in volume and frequency and, most important, the reader has the opportunity to interact with the content. Whether it's interaction through videos and slideshows or interaction through comments and social networking elements, online news sources have many more opportunities to frame a story with narrativizing elements.

Of the major online news sites, the online version of the Guardian, Guardian Unlimited, lends itself to analysis more readily than other sites such as the New York Times, BBC or CNN. Guardian Unlimited has won a number of awards over the years, including the Webbys and the Newspaper Awards' Best Daily Newspaper on the Web award. One of the reasons is that its design bolsters the narrative in its stories better than most sites. In its brand statement, Guardian Unlimited also illustrates how it perceives the online medium should be used:

Our philosophy is to embrace the web and all its publishing possibilities not just to amplify our journalism but to allow us to change our journalism to adapt to the evolving expectations of the audience. Unlike many mainstream media websites we support a large unmoderated talk community, we have launched blogging onto our site with great success in the past two years and we have just embarked on an experimental extension to our travel site where users will generate and rate recommendations.

Guardian Unlimited not only follows through with their claim of embracing the “publishing possibilities” of the web, but the site also tries to minimize the extratextual factors through a large amount of white space, minimized and subtly colored navigation and few flashy ads. These particular design elements, as shown below, all work together to influence and shape the narrative found in the stories, no matter how minimal they may be. It is not, as is the case with so many other sites, merely an online version of a print piece.1 Not only is it differentiated on media kits as its own entity parallel with the more traditional, printed newspapers the Guardian and the Observer (both of which are owned by the same company that owns Guardian Unlimited), Guardian Unlimited has a dedicated staff. While looking at hectic sites like abcnews.com or FOXNews.com would assuredly help us reach the same conclusion—that extratextual factors can influence the narrative aspect of a story—it would be an empty victory, as many of the flashy ads and design elements actively compete for the reader’s attention and very obviously make their way into the narrative. On the other hand, analyzing a site that actively tries to minimize the influence of these factors will show that this conclusion is unavoidable and, at least in the case of Guardian Unlimited, a great help to the narrative created through the story and elements.

This analysis can readily lend itself to any article on Guardian Unlimited, but a political one will more easily illustrate the unavoidable bias present in news narratives that is not as easily garnered from, for example, a piece on a particular artwork. It will also allow us a look at a story that is connected with many others in a variety of ways: through the people involved, the people it affects and the political maneuvers that occur as a nature of the vocation. For this reason, I will be analyzing the story “Terror detention extension a 'charade', say dissenting MPs” that was originally published on 6:00 PM, December 11, 2007 in Guardian Unlimited.

I will mostly be concerned with the biases found in this article that rest not in the text but in the surrounding elements; the actual words on the page are of less importance to this essay than the aesthetic, extratextual context. For these reasons, an analysis of Guardian Unlimited’s version of the story as it stands in relation to accounts on other sites will be brief, although the disparities merit mention. Similar stories appeared in numerous online publications, including Times Online, Telegraph.co.uk, the Independent, Yahoo! News, the BBC and Reuters. We will use these last two for comparison since the BBC is a larger news outlet than the Guardian and the Reuters article was syndicated and published concurrently with the Guardian Unlimited article on the 11th.

The general narrative that runs through all of these stories is the conversation in the British government over whether or not to extend the amount of time terror suspects can be held from 28 days to 42 days. During this 42-day period, parliament would have to vote whether or not to uphold the sentence, debatably “safeguarding” the prisoner. Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, defends the plan, but there is a large contingent of politicians who do not back the proposal, for reasons that vary depending on the article. Guardian Unlimited makes no bones about showing where their allegiances lie in this debate. From the title of the article and the very first sentence, the plan is labeled a “charade.” Throughout the article, quotes attacking the plan are repeated: the plan is “a ‘cosmetic exercise’,” “overturning the decision [to hold a suspect for 42 days] would be meaningless and … it was ‘misleading to describe it as a safeguard’ for the terror suspect,” and “there was no immediate need for an extension.” The narrative begins to unfold in the text: a needless plan, disliked by everyone, is proposed so that an individual can get more power.

The manner in which the pros and cons of the plan are put forth in the article further narrativizes the facts. The plan is first denounced as a charade because “by the time MPs voted on a particular case, a suspect might already have been incarcerated for 42 days,” to which there is no response to the contrary. It is taken as an un-opposable fact that this plan is simply a way to detain citizens for long periods of time with no way out. More criticism abounds about the “difficulty” in achieving a vote that would release the prisoner because of a lack of “the necessary information” and a desire “not to prejudice an ongoing investigation.” The article continues, recounting questions about the “lack of support” and the political motives behind the plan. Finally, in the eighth and ninth paragraphs, a defense of the plan appears:

But [Jacqui Smith] defended the government's decision to try to pass the new time limit, conceding that it had been a compromise but saying that the number had been reached because "it is our view that in the system we have designed, 42 days is likely to be adequate in the future".

The home secretary repeatedly described the limit as a "safeguard" rather than a "target" and said it would be used only in exceptional circumstances. She said that while she was concerned about community cohesion, she thought a successful terrorist attack would be "the biggest disruptor of community cohesion and community peace in this country."

In response, the article describes Smith’s answers to MP questions as “confident,” but “breezy,” followed by another potential bill that would allow “intercept evidence” to be used as “an alternative to extending the 28-day limit on pre-charge detention.” With the closing remarks, the textual narrative completes itself. Jacqui Smith, a “confident,” “breezy” home secretary introduced a sparsely-supported bill that is little more than a political maneuver for her to gain more power. In doing so, she has downplayed another alternative that civil liberties groups stand behind. She will forge ahead in her plan and, likely, be stopped.

The BBC, however, presents the same facts in a much different narrativization. Unlike the title of the Guardian Unlimited piece, the BBC article is rather benign: “Smith plans 42-day terror limit.” Even though the word “terror” presents a great deal of stress and fear, it has a “limit.” There is no mention of the previous plan in the title, just the presumption that there will now be a “42-day” “limit” on “terror.” The first paragraph succinctly states the case in point with no narrativization: “Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has announced plans to extend the period that terrorism suspects can be held without charge for up to 42 days.” Only in the second paragraph does the reader hear the mention of “critics” and know that the lengthening of terror suspect detention without charges is a debated topic. The article neglects to mention the actual nature of this criticism until the thirteenth paragraph:

But civil liberties groups have accused ministers of abandoning consensus and playing politics with terror laws.
The Commons home affairs select committee, which meets to consider the issue later, is also believed to be unconvinced.

The previous eight paragraphs set up the case for the plan in a much more detailed and convincing way. The “exceptional” nature of the 42-day holding period is mentioned three times, minimizing the significance of this plan. The article also positions the 42-day limit as a compromise. Not only do the MPs have a role in the decision, but the plan has been decreased from the original limit of “56 or 58 days.” This situation is, according to the article, the same as the previous time this issue arose when a 90-day limit was whittled down to the current 28 days.

Countering the initial allegiance with the plan, the BBC article presents quotes from the director of a civil liberties campaign group, the shadow home secretary and the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman. All position the plan as a political maneuver that will not bring any real change. Like the Guardian Unlimited article, the BBC article narrativizes the facts and creates a story, albeit a very different story. Here, we have a plan that is, after all, pretty rational. Not only is it a step down from the 56 or 58 days that should be in place, it’s way down from the 90 days that was proposed originally. Besides, says the BBC article, these actions are only for “exceptional” cases. Even the critics (according to the article at least) don’t see anything actually wrong with the plan other than the waste of time involved. The narrative here is that a necessary plan has been put forth and that, eventually, the critics will stop wasting time debating such a small thing and pass the bill. Where the Guardian Unlimited article hinted at an abuse of power by Smith and potential human rights violations by imprisoning individuals longer without charge, the BBC article does not focus on any negatives, other than the time issue, stemming from the debate. This article is more subtle than the Guardian Unlimited, but just as narrativized and, consequentially, moralized.

Of the three articles, the Reuters one is, by far, the least narrativized and most sterile. It presents objective-sounding sentences strung together and, frankly, makes for rather dry reading, but still cannot escape narrativizing. Like the other two articles, the title gives a good impression of what story the author attempts to convey: “Smith admits few support 42-day detention plan.”  The anti-plan stance is backed up in the following paragraphs that speak to the “minority of bodies consulted” and the “controversial plans backed by only six of 71 “unnamed organizations.” The pro-plan stance finally comes in on the last two paragraphs before the second page of the article, which name “senior police officers” who back the plan, call the plans “necessary” and speak to “safeguards” that will be included.

The politically-motivated nature of the plan is addressed in the Reuters article, but only through Smith’s voice, who “denied the 42 day-limit [sic] had been formulated with political interests in mind but to ‘ensure successful prosecutions.’”  The potential for human rights abuse does not show up in the Reuters article, but there is an admission that “opposition parties, human rights groups and some Muslim organisations” are against the plan. This criticism, however, is not directly classified other than the fact that it “indicates that Smith and Prime Minister Gordon Brown will face a tough battle to get the laws through parliament.” Where the Guardian Unlimited had a narrative of political intrigue and human rights abuse and the BBC had one of politicians needlessly squabbling over a not-so-important bill, the Reuters article has a much less exciting narrative. Politicians take up sides: the home secretary and her cohorts on one end and “opposition parties, human rights groups and some Muslim organisations” on the other. They will vote and, like when this happened before when Tony Blair introduced a similar bill, it will get defeated. Though less exciting, the Reuters article does narrativize the events, but the amount of moralizing is low. The plan will probably be shot down not because it is a violation of some moral principle and should never come to pass, but it will be shot down just because no one supports it.

All three stories narrativize the facts in particular ways that support their cause. The BBC saw hope for Smith’s bill in the fact that it is already a compromise, much like Tony Blair’s bill that got passed. Reading the Reuter’s article, we find that the bill to which the BBC took such a shine to was actually Blair’s “first Commons defeat.” The Guardian Unlimited article doesn’t even mention this, evidence that it does not think of precedents so much as the present situation. Even the opposition to the bill changes drastically in each article. Guardian Unlimited and Reuters both see the opposition as a strong force that will, most likely, stop the bill from passing. The BBC dismisses the critics more readily and thinks that the bill can actually pass. From each article, another narrativization of the same facts is produced and, as more are read, they all influence each other and a fuller, overarching narrative emerges from the same facts. If we were to read a fourth article, our narrativization of the facts would become fuller, more informed by a greater number of facts, but we would still be far from reaching any sort of un-narrativized facts.

Reading multiple textual narrativizations constructed from the same facts, as shown above, creates a fuller narrative. What if we were to read the narrativizing elements from outside the text that act more subtly on the story? When we read the Guardian Unlimited article, we are not just seeing the words and language; we are viewing a particular form of that language. Design elements particular to the medium are arranged in such a way that they inform the narrative of the article, giving preference to some aspects and downplaying others. From the large, sans-serif heading to the addition of similar articles on the left side of the current text, each element of the Guardian Unlimited article exists with the goal of presenting the impression of a fuller, more objective and informed narrativization of particular facts, while it actually serves to strengthen the same narrative slant put forth in the story—a different form of the moralization and narrativization found in the text.

The typography of the text itself backs up the narrative created through the language. The title of the article is, by far, the largest and most striking element on the page: a two-line, bolded sans-serif proclamation that the terror detention plan is a charade (1)2. It overshadows the logo and the only other competition for attention is the dark red “Politics and terrorism” section marker (2). Through its high contrast (black on white) and size, however, the headline is the strongest element on the page and immediately draws the reader’s eye, providing the first instance of the text’s narrativization—in this case coloring the narrative as one of false pretenses and dissention. Regardless of whether or not the reader finishes the article, the narrativization provided through the headline will occur.

Even the choice of text, the sans-serif font Arial3, speaks about the text. Sans-serif fonts are more modern than their serifed counterparts—especially Arial, which is widely used since it’s the default sans-serif font packaged with Microsoft Windows. As a result, many of the newer websites (usually called “Web2.0”4 sites) use sans-serif fonts and a running internet joke has emerged that sites can’t be new, hip and Web2.0 unless they use a sans-serif font. Using Arial, rather than a serif font as is found on the NewYorkTimes.com, characterizes the content as more modern and up-to-date. The narrative created through the story and typography together is not a stuffy one lodged in tradition but one that embraces change and progressive attitudes, displacing pretension and formality, talking on the level of the reader.

The size of the article itself also adds to the narrative, but in a different way. Guardian Unlimited’s articles are set much narrower than normal. Where most websites—both news and non-news—set the width of their main content area at about 1024 pixels, Guardian Unlimited’s articles are 608 pixels across, making the individual articles visually longer while providing an inordinate amount of white space surrounding the articles. By stretching the articles vertically, they appear actually longer and thus appear to contain more of the facts. The narrative of the dissenting MPs that takes up three-and-a-half screens suddenly gives the impression that it is much more informed than the shorter BBC or Reuters articles that only take up about two screens each. A “fuller” narrative that has, apparently, assimilated more facts than other accounts results. Whether or not the story actually has taken in more facts than the others is, of course, impossible to tell. What matters is that the appearance of a more informed narrative results.

The white space surrounding the text also helps to classify the “full” narrative as unadulterated. Where sites like AJC.com fill as much space as possible with ads, semi-related stories and other features of the site, Guardian Online has removed most of those elements and toned down those that do remain, the specific effects of which will be discussed later. Because the article pages on Guardian Unlimited are largely empty, the page—and, as a result, the narrativization of the story—seem more isolated. The lack of ads, icons and miscellaneous text imparts the idea that even though those elements could be there (and often are on other sites), they are not; the story is the important part. The narrative materialized from the text without unnecessary modifiers. Each element outside of the text is purposefully put there and has a direct relation to the story—the narrative is not just more full, it is full with relevant information.

 The block of text stands next to, but is not broken up by, all of the elements except two: a single picture and caption (4) as well as a single advertisement (5). The picture intrudes only partially, floating to the right of the first two paragraphs, but the advertisement breaks up the article into two parts. We will deal with the former element first. Placing the photo within the story immediately makes it part of the story and thus narrativizes it. This picture in particular depicts a rather harried Jacqui Smith looking straight ahead. We can quickly come to the conclusion that this photo was purposefully chosen as a very uncomplimentary shot since the Reuters photos show her holding back a smile and sitting calmly in a car. Combined with the text of the article, the photo adds to the image of Jacqui Smith as a “confident” individual who, even amongst fierce criticism, will hold her ground since she expects “to win over MPs.” Before reading the article, we know about dissention and criticism from the headline and can see that in the picture Jacqui Smith is being criticized and is not very happy about it. After reading the article, the original narrativization from the picture still holds true. Smith is being attacked and definitely isn’t happy about it, but will stand her ground. Additionally, the photo, like the article, does not show Smith in a good light. The article presents her as unsympathetic to potential human rights violations, just as the picture portrays her as unsympathetically listening to complaints.

It is also of note that the photo, in actuality, does not necessarily have any direct connection with the subject matter of the article. As the caption notes, it is a Press Association photo originally retrieved from an online collection. We have no way of knowing whether the criticism (if it even is criticism) Smith is listening to in the photo concerns her plans for detaining terrorist suspects or if it is something completely different. Without a narrative of its own, the picture gets pulled into the narrative of the text around it, giving the narrative a visual component as well as a textual component and thus adding to the impression of a full narrative.

The randomly generated advertisement that breaks up the article is a much more confusing element and uniquely placed. One most sites, like CNN.com and Reuters, the ads are placed near, but well outside the articles.  The placement of the advertisement seems to break apart, rather than add to, the solidarity of the narrative. It divides the article, visually in the middle of it, but is clearly marked as an element that should have no bearing on the narrative. Two hairlines above and below the advertisement offset it from the article, in addition to a link stating “Article continues” that allows the reader to bypass the ad. Though visually impossible to miss when reading the article, the way the advertisement is placed on the page downplays the rather ostentatious positioning. It cannot, however, escape narrativizing the article.

As an abrupt, often humorous break, the advertisement puts a small but important clarification onto the end of the narrative created so far: it’s not all that important. The battle over a plan involving potential human rights violations and shady political maneuvers will come down to the ability of the stubborn Jacqui Smith to convince the numerous MPs who disagree with the plan (with good reason, in this narrativization). Human lives are at stake, political abuse is rampant, but, the advertisement says, it’s not all that important. This commentary on the articles occurs through the advertisement not so much because it is an ad, but because it does not figure topically into the article at all. Inserting an unrelated element into the midst of the article (especially one with a neon green fish tank) compromises the integrity of the narrative. Even though the words say that this story is important (not to mention just the fact that it exists at all), it is not so important that it cannot be interrupted.

The surrounding elements, though they do not break into the text as obviously as the advertisement or the picture, do add to the narrative. There are three general areas: the masthead that contains the logo, an ad and the main navigation; the left column that contains related information; and the footer that contains external links, more related links and minor navigation. Most of the elements analyzed up until this point appear in the printed version of stories and contribute to the narrative in those cases as well. These surrounding elements, however, are found only on the internet and outline how the internet provides unique ways to narrativize information.

At the top of the page, the primary narrativizing element is the navigation. Unlike many other sites, Guardian Unlimited splits up its sections into a “network of destination sites” that are, in actuality, all subdomains of the same site. The main way this organizational structure manifests itself is through the disappearance of an overarching navigation when a user moves from the homepage to a “destination site” or article. The homepage, just as at other news sites, contains links to sections like “Media,” “Science,” “Society,” etc. When the user clicks into one of these sections (or goes to an article in one of these sections), a unique navigation appears. This functionality is very different from most sites, which retain the overarching navigation (the “Media,” “Science,” etc. of Guardian Unlimited) as one moves deeper into the site. CNN.com and NewYorkTimes.com are two of many examples of this second type of navigational organization.

Creating this section-specific navigation rather directly labels the content of the article. The article on terror detention becomes a narrative about politics—and nothing else. By not carrying over other navigational elements with words like “Business” or “Media,” the narrative becomes solely a political one and consciously not a part of the other sections, reinforcing the article’s narrativization of the facts as political maneuvers. The narrative is isolated in the political sphere and has no interest in other fields like business or media (and, conversely, those fields have no interest in this narrative, either).

The other options that do appear—“Home,” “Audio,” “Parties,” “Backbencher,” “Polls,” “Comment” and “Special reports” in red and “Talk,” “PMQs,” “Your MP,” “Simon Hoggart,” “Maps,” “Blog,” “This week’s stories” in grey—present a multitude of options for more information in the political sphere. The particular coloring of the navigation directs the user first towards any of the red elements and then towards any of the grey elements. Not only is there a variety of subjects (“Parties,” “Special reports,” etc.), there is a variety of formats (“Audio,” “Polls,” etc.). The availability of sources for information give the current article more legitimacy. Because the sources are included in the design and form of the article, it is assumed that they also inform the facts and thus this narrative is seen as much more full than a printed piece.

The left column operates in a similar manner, categorizing the narrative as political. There is a link to the “Politics and terrorism” section as well as the option to search for “MPs and issues” and “Ask Aristotle,” a search engine for Guardian Unlimited’s political database. Each of these options, through their repeated mention of the word “politics,” classify the narrative in the nearby article. They also increased the appearance of a wealth of facts informing the article by the open-ended nature of the search element. No piece of information in the story is beyond reproach; all a user has to do is search for it and find its truth. The narrative appears more truthful because it gives the user the option to refute it and presents the potential for its own questioning.

Below the search elements, there is a list of other articles in the same “Politics and terror” section as the current article. Most of the articles’ titles back up the anti-detention plan stance of the narration of the current article: “MPs deliver fresh blows against detention plans,” “ Former lord chancellor joins critics of detention beyond 28 days,” “No case for extending terror limit, MPs say,” “Ministers struggle as plan to increase detention limit to 42 days attracts new round of criticism.” Other articles make clear that the anti-detention stance is not one of softness on terror, but one of watching human rights: “We will not negotiate with the Taliban, insists Brown,” “Hundreds searched illegally at Gatwick.” And still other articles show that the narrative is informed and open for any questioning: “Q&A: The terror detention limit.”

The footer is the last extra-textual section on the page. Immediately after the article’s text, there are links to “Sign up for the Backbender” (a weekly email), more “Special reports,” other “Relevant articles,” a “Comment and analysis,” and a “Useful site.” These all serve the same function as the elements in the left column: to present more facts (or, more appropriately, more narrativizations of facts) to bolster the appearance of the current narrative as full and informed. The most interesting link, however, is the “Useful site” link to the Home Office, which points to a site off of Guardian Unlimited. This is the strongest influence on the narrative because it is not controlled by Guardian Unlimited. The search elements allowed the facts of the narrative to be called into question, but on its own terms. Search results came from Guardian Unlimited and could be moderated, giving the appearance of the potential for more information while still being able to moderate it. The link to the Home Office website is an unmoderated one outside the control of Guardian Unlimited. By allowing and even suggesting that external information is available, the narrative assumes an air of truth and, again, appears more informed. It has taken into account all the facts and drawn out this particular story which is, if anyone were to look at them all, the true story. Just to prove it, the option to look at all the facts is placed on the page.

The elements surrounding the actual text combine with the text itself to create the impression of a complete and informed narrativization that can stand up to criticism. From the typography of the text itself to the position of surrounding elements, the visual elements on an online news story are all parts of the narrative and cannot be excluded. The particular example chosen in this article showed how these elements can bolster a particular narrative and credit it, but many examples to the contrary exist: “unprofessional” blogs, personal websites, and others. Regardless of its positive or negative influence, the visual design of a narrative figures into how the narration is received, in any medium, and cannot be considered external factors that are easily bracketed off in the creation of a narrative.

Footnotes

 

Appendix 1: Guardian Unlimited article with Demarcations

Appendix 2: Original Guardian Unlimited article

Bibliography

ABC News Internet Ventures. ABC News: Online news, breaking news, features stories and more. 2007. http://abcnews.com (17 Dec. 2007).

Aljazeera.net. Al Jazeera English – Front Page. 2007 http://english.aljazeera.net/English (17 Dec. 2007).

American Media, Inc. Weekly World News – The World’s Only Reliable Newspaper. 2007. http://weeklyworldnews.com 2007. (17 Dec. 2007).

Bell, Emily. AdInfo | GU brand. 2007. http://www.adinfo-guardian.co.uk/guardian-unlimited/index.shtml (17 Dec. 2007).

Courier-Gazette. News Index – Digital Edition Courier-Gazette, Newark NY 14513. 2007. http://www.cgazette.com/ (17 Dec. 2007).

Cox Newspapers. ajc.com | Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 2007. http://ajc.com (17 Dec. 2007).

FOX News Network, LLC. Breaking News | Latest News | Current News – FOXNews.com. 2007 http://foxnews.com (17 Dec. 2007).

Guardian News and Media Limited. Guardian Unlimited home | Guardian Unlimited. 2007. http://guardian.co.uk (17 Dec. 2007).

Hough, Andrew. “Smith admits few support 42-day detention plan.” 11 Dec. 2007. Reuters UK.  http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL1171452320071211
?sp=true (17 Dec. 2007).

O’Reilly, Tim. “What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software.” 30 September 2005. O’Reilly Media, Inc. http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html (17 Dec. 2007).

Radnofsky, Louise. “Terror detention extension a ‘charade’, say dissenting MPs.” 11 Dec. 2007. Guardian Unlimited. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2225702,00.html (17 Dec. 2007)

“Smith plans 42-day terror limit.” 6 Dec. 2007. BBC NEWS. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7130072.stm (17 Dec. 2007).