Having been on holiday in the week of the London terrorist atrocity - or 7/7, as it has already been dubbed - I had plenty of time to monitor the media coverage of the day's events.
I first tuned in to the TV news channels at around 11am, which was only around an hour after the news broke.
Already, Sky and ITN had cameras in position at the key locations, including Kings Cross, Aldgate, Russell Square and Tavistock Square.
Of these, Russell Square yielded fairly dramatic footage of medical teams arriving and departing, and also interviews with some of the survivors (before the police managed to intervene).
The cameras were also able to get some footage of the blown-up bus in Tavistock Square, but for most of the day these were taken from some distance away, which seemed to lessen the impact.
In fact, it wasn't until the newspaper coverage of the bus incident the next day that the full horror of what had happened there sunk home - unlike the TV, the newspapers had managed to get amazing shots taken just after the explosion, with shell- shocked survivors standing on the remains of the upper deck.
The newspapers also had some pretty graphic descriptions of the carnage from the survivors of the bus bomb - and boy, they must have worked very hard and very fast to get those, as the police and hospitals are not particularly well known for allowing access to people in these circumstances.
However, as dramatic as the words were, as is often the case with disaster stories, it is the pictures that linger in the memory.
It was interesting to see what the nationals would go for as their front page lead.
I had a bet with my journalist pal that it would be the bus, he opted for the woman in the burns mask.
As it happens, most newspapers went for the bus - not surprising really, as not only are the capital's red double deckers highly symbolic of London and also normality.
The pictures of this one crippled and ripped apart in a city street were just so shocking.
One paper opted for another pic, one of the bombed tube trains, an image which they seemed to have had exclusively, as it hadn't been on TV.
All in all, the newspapers I read had clearly done a very comprehensive job in what must have been extremely difficult circumstances.
In fact, the only news media I thought was lacking was the BBC, who seemed to me to be well behind everyone else throughout the day.
Also, their news special in the evening, fronted by Jeremy Paxman, was almost bizarre - as ever with the BBC, it was full of fancy graphics and thumping music, which I thought completely inappropriate.
It seemed to gloss over the actual events of the day, instead concentrating on reaction from a fairly pedestrian panel of people, who could have just as well been talking about the weather.
I now read that the BBC has banned its journalists from calling the bombers "terrorists", on the grounds that the word is " inflammatory" and is one that may "carry emotional or value judgments".
If that is right, then you really have to ask yourself what kind of people are running the show at the BBC these days.