Opinion masquerading as fact yet again. Today, Wednesday 05 March 2008, the Times has an article on the Spanish elections and the second televised debate. The only problem is: the headline says one thing, the article another.
There is no proof whatsoever to back up the claim in the headline that Zapatero's support is faltering, and indeed in the text or body of the article there is no evidence presented to substantiate such a claim. It's the author's (or more likely the editor's) wishful thinking...
This is outright deceipt aimed at those who don't have enough time to read everything and who skim the headlines.
There is a further error of fact in the article, which claims that "The opposition leader (Rajoy)...accused him (Zapatero) of insulting the victims of Eta".
In fact, Rajoy used the word 'agredir', which doesn't mean to insult, it means to assault or physically attack. One would have hoped that a Times correspondent could at least understand the language of the country he's reporting on...or God forbid, he wouldn't mistranslate on purpose would he?