One event, contrasting headlines

The following three headlines appeared on the websites of the Financial Times, the New York Times and the Washington Post respectively on the same day (16th May 2008):

Saudis to boost oil output after US pressure (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/be0d6daa-2347-11dd-b214-000077b07658.html)

Bush Rebuffed on Oil Plea in Saudi Arabia (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/world/middleeast/17prexy.html?hp)

Saudis Reject Bush's Call to Increase Oil Output (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/16/AR2008051601111.html?hpid=topnews)

So, was Bush applying aggressive 'pressure', was he making a helpless 'plea' or was he simply making a 'call'? Did the Saudis agree to increase oil output as the FT states, or did they reject it, as NYT and WP state?

Update:
The headlines have changed...The NY Times headline now reads " Saudis Rebuff Bush, Politely, on Pumping More Oil", and the Washington Post reads "Saudis to Increase Oil Output by Roughly 300,000 Barrels a Day". Interesting.

A tale of three cities...

The Financial Times reviews the architectural ambitions of three Guld cities: Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Doha. Part 1 on Abu Dhabi is here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cd4c088e-2046-11dd-80b4-000077b07658.html

Is it a case of 'build it and hope they will come'? Interestingly enough, the sand at the Emirates Palace hotel was imported (yes, even sand can be imported into the desert).