Second, we thought that the cover statement had a somewhat different status because it was made in a voice other than the Guardian's - that is, not by a Guardian writer or illustrator.
It found Marler had used "unsporting and discriminatory language towards Lee" and he had, by his actions, "breached World Rugby Regulation 20 (which covers statements that are unsporting, insulting and/or discriminatory by reason of race or ethnic origin) and the code of conduct and brought the game into disrepute".
"We will cover their statements, of course, but it will be in accordance with my views of what is and what is not acceptable on state television," he said.
They accused the media of "fantasising in particular about the alleged intentions or frames of mind of Anne Sinclair or of Dominique Strauss-Kahn under the hypothetical cover of statements by third parties courageously hiding behind anonymity".
"Media cover these statements and activities about refugees and sometimes disseminate pejorative terms used by those they report, but it's unseemly".
Given that both Obama and Romney responded to the jobs numbers, it's understandable that political reporters, including at The Huffington Post, would cover those statements in a political context.
Isn't having her on the cover a statement enough, that we might come to that conclusion on our own?
"Most leaders want the media to cover a statement, but they also want the public to be able to read what they say without the media's interpretation".
Ridiculous doesn't even begin to cover a statement like that.
"How do you talk about class in a way that is clear, upfront, pithy, and interesting enough to be on a magazine cover?" the statement asked.
