The Mail did at least run a separate story on the IFS's qualms about the Conservative manifesto - that it would almost certainly have to put up taxes and increase borrowing to fulfil its spending plans, in spite of promise of a five-year tax freeze. Even without the paper's political stance, it's hard to argue against the news judgment that the IFS saying "many millions more" would have to pay more tax under Labour is the more compelling line.
The Telegraph did not mention the scepticism about Tory promises until the sixth of eleven paragraphs, and gave the examination of the Conservative manifesto a total of three sentences.
The Times acknowledged in its second par that the IFS - and the Resolution Foundation i a separate report - had looked at both manifestos, but did not get to the doubts about the Conservative promises until the ninth of its 13 paragraphs and then gave them a single sentence.
Express and Sun readers were left to think that only Labour promises had been examined and found wanting.
The i, yet again, was completely even-handed - apparently the only paid-for Fleet Street paper capable of being so - to the extent that it spelt out the IFS verdicts on various aspects of the manifestos under separate headings in a sidebar.
Metro also went straight down the line with equal to-the-point coverage of the two parties in its brief story.
Which experts and where are not explained. I rather suspect it was neither the IFS nor the Resolution Foundation.