One sentence of background, as ever: on Ukraine's 35th Independence Day, Andy Burnham used his first foreign trip as prime minister to announce that Britain will let missile-maker MBDA release classified data on the UK-made components of the Storm Shadow, so Ukraine can eventually build the long-range missile itself — France cleared its half, the SCALP, in July, and the Kremlin, which pulled its ambassador out of London the day before, called the move fuel on the fire. Same handshake in front of everyone's cameras. Four newsrooms walked away asking four completely different questions. * The Guardian asked: is Britain doing enough? Its news hed: "Burnham hands secret missile technology to Ukraine in first foreign trip." Hands — a lovely gift-bag verb for a licensing decision about export-controlled components. Its analysis called the visit "a renewal of badly needed support," and its editorial went full coach-at-halftime: "build the weapons independence Kyiv needs." In Guardian-world the only critique available is more. Also worth a frame: where the BBC had Burnham "vowing" support despite Russia's "outrageous threats," the Guardian had him "accusing" Russia of them — same quote, one verb of extra distance. * The BBC asked: does this actually help Zelensky? Top of the site: "Burnham vows support for Ukraine despite 'outrageous threats' from Russia" — the steadfast-statesman shot, No 10's phrase of the day riding in the headline. But downstairs, the BBC hired its own skeptic: "UK missiles offer may help Ukraine - but they are not what Zelensky needs most," plus an explainer asking whether Storm Shadow is "a game changer." Credit where due: on a day tailor-made for flag content, the national broadcaster ran a hed that deflates its own government's announcement. That's the assignment. * CNN asked: will it work at all? "Britain's giving Ukraine access to secret missile technology. Will it make a difference?" — the shrug, in headline form. Easy to read as cynicism, except the question happens to be the right one, for a reason buried in everybody's paragraph nine. * Al Jazeera supplied that reason. Its explainer — "UK to help Ukraine build Storm Shadow long-range missiles: Why it matters" — is where the catch lives: the missile "incorporate[s] some sensitive US technologies," meaning Washington may effectively hold approval rights over what Ukraine builds, and an analyst notes a cruise missile of this complexity takes about two years from contract to delivery. Read that again next to the day's celebratory verbs. The "secret blueprints" being "handed" over are a two-year industrial project with an American permission slip stapled to the front. * We'd normally close a story like this with Russia's state outlet, since RT is on our beat list. We couldn't: from an EU internet connection, RT simply doesn't load — that particular framing decision was made in Brussels, not a newsroom. So here's the scoreboard from the four we could read. Enough? — the Guardian. Helpful? — the BBC. Effective? — CNN. Controlled by whom? — Al Jazeera. None of them is wrong, and none of them is lying. But read only one, and you'll be sure you know what happened in Kyiv today. Read all four, and you'll finally know which questions your newsroom decided you didn't need.