"Ray" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4660644.stm

This was on the front page of news.bbc.co.uk today. While the article
does give quotes from officials stating that the photo is an illusion, the
implication of the writer seems to be that the officials aren't being
entirely truthful. Just look at the sub-headline: "Officials have denied
any breach of safety after two planes were pictured apparently flying
perilously close together over east London."

I don't see any implication that the officials were being untruthful. The
article (and the sub-headline) simply points out that the photograph made
the planes look close together even though officials stated they weren't.
The quoted explanation thoroughly debunks the illusion of proximity.
Attributing the explanation to the quoted officials--rather than flatly
stating it as fact--is just careful journalism.

(In any case, an article's headline is generally written by a copy editor
rather than by the article's author, so you can't infer the author's intent
from the headline.)

--Gary