Could they be fooling themselves?

I came across this article in the Buenos Aires Herald today, detailing coverage of the Falklands War anniversary in British media. Apart from the fact they seem to focus on predominantly left wing media, and papers with low circulation figures (The Guardian, kept afloat by the BBC and school staff rooms, but not much else), I was struck by this sentence:

With special productions in their online and print editions, British media is giving its own account of the military conflict that confronted Argentina and the UK in 1982. (My emphasis)

Maybe that's a turn of phrase I'm just not used to, but is it really honest to say that Argentina and the UK were "confronted" by "military conflict", as if such an event was drawn randomly from the Bag of Fate? Has the Buenos Aries Herald forgotten that Argentina started the whole thing by invading the islands? (I understand there was never a formal declaration of war from either side.)

Another odd news story occurred yesterday, making me wonder if it was an April Fool's story. I'm still not entirely convinced. Apparently, following his suspicious landslide victory in the Bradford West election, George Galloway tweeted, "Shattered but happy after the Blackburn triumph."

This does appear to be expose Galloway as caring little for which location he was voted in, as long as he won and now has some power. But he tweeted shortly after, "Nice try. Password now changed," and suggested his account had been hacked.

Really? Wouldn't a hacker have tweeted something a little more...interesting? A little more controversial? It might well be true, and we either have the most uninspired hacker in the world, or the most shrewd. But Occam's Razor suggests to me Galloway is trying to cover up his idiocy. Or does he really believe what he wrote?