Westminster terror attack front pages: i changes front after backlash - Press Gazette

Westminster terror attack front pages: i changes front after backlash

The i newspaper changed its front page last night after a backlash when it was published online.

The original front showed a pool of blood next to the foot of a victim of yesterday’s terror attack in Westminster. Many voiced concern that it was in poor taste and disrespectful to the apparently deceased man.

i editor Oly Duff made the decision to change the front shortly after 10pm saying on Twitter: “Thanks for views on front – there seem to be people with strongly opposing feelings about it, but ultimately cover should not be the story..”

He later said: “Thanks for the various messages this evening – especially those criticising first front page for poor taste. No intention to offend…

“Understand why it did, and apologise. New cover here. Chastened – and grateful for protection we all receive as go about our daily lives.”

The second choice for front page image showed Foreign Office minister Tobias Ellwood attempting to save the life of the policeman killed by yesterday’s attacker.

The Evening Standard, which normally now has one edition going to press at 11am, published a late digital version of the paper with the headline “TERRROR CARNAGE AT WESTMINSTER”. The scale of the attack unfolded from 3pm onwards.

Press Gazette understands that the Standard has not had the capacity to bring out a 4pm print edition for eight years.

The Daily Mail, Mirror, Telegraph, Star and Sun all led with pictures of the attacker (who was killed by police) being carried into an ambulance.

The Times gave its entire front-page to an image of police dealing with the aftermath of the attack outside Parliament.

The same image, but with a closer crop, was used on several other front pages:


Author: Dominic Ponsford

Dominic Ponsford is the editor of Press Gazette


1 thought on “Westminster terror attack front pages: i changes front after backlash”

  1. Don’t understand this. Why is the image of a shoe and blood lacking in taste? I’d have thought the picture of the victim with his chest bare was much more intrusive and the one of the armed policeman training his gun on the attacker is more violent. Why would the editor apologise for an image which is more restrained than either of them?

Comments are closed.