Today marks the 20th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster, in which 96 Liverpool FC fans were crushed to death on the terraces. At the time, as it does today, the event made headlines across the country; for the most part, sympathetic with the plight of the Liverpool fans. However, the Sun and its then editor Kelvin MacKenzie notoriously laid the blame firmly at the feet of the fans.

In an article headlined 'THE TRUTH', three sub-headings below read "Some fans picked pockets of victims ... Some fans urinated on the brave cops ... Some fans beat up PC giving kiss of life". The story sparked outrage in Liverpool, and as a result many in the city boycotted the newspaper. In 2004, when the Sun apologised for making "the most terrible mistake in its history", circulation of the publication in Liverpool was still just 12,000 - compared to 3.3 million nationwide.

Roy Greenslade describes the 80s as a "wild west" period for the tabloids, with the Sun at the forefront - and the Sun Hillsborough article as one of its prime examples. He gives the period as the reason for the creation of the Press Complaints Commission and the establishment of a code of ethics.

Coverage at the time of Hillsborough was very different to how such a tragic event would be reported on now. In 1989, the Mirror for example, "went as far as to show a close-up of the crushed fans". Such a shocking image would not be printed in British newspapers today, although perhaps newspapers in other countries could and would. However in contrast, mobile phones and digital cameras are commonplace and would mean that more such photos were taken - and most probably published online.

It would also be unusual for a modern day newspaper to take so strong a stance on a topic that is a potential minefield of controversy. The Sun has since unreservedly admitted its fault in the matter, although former editor Kevin MacKenzie in 2006 retracted his apology claiming that Rupert Murdoch head of Sun owner News International had forced him into it.

Coverage of the controversial death a bystander in the G20 protests in London recently has been hesitant to blame protesters, yet nor have many newspapers taken a strong stance against police action. Modern day reporting on controversial events tends towards an unbiased, almost fence-sitting nature - but is this due to stricter regulation? Or do facts such as the estimation that "editor Kelvin MacKenzie's catastrophic misjudgment has cost owner Rupert Murdoch around £55 million in lost circulation" put a fear of angering public opinion into the hearts and minds of newspaper publishers?