The Guardian reports on a Titian rediscovery at the NG, followed up at Art History News (which points out that it's actually rather old news anyway). I haven't seen it yet, so I'll refrain from commenting on the attribution, but a couple of things struck me about the story.
First, there is nothing on the NG press page. They have given this as an exclusive to Jonathan Jones, who got a meeting with the Director and then wrote a gushing article about it. That kind of media favouritism is very bad form. Art journalism is already far too incestuous and uncritical.
Second, I rate Jonathan Jones as one of the best in the business, but he says some really stupid things. I just cannot imagine what makes him insist on the superiority of the NG's Titian collection - it's not even relevant to the story. On the other hand, I was impressed by the quality of the commentary by readers, who make some astutely critical points.
Finally I'm concerned by Nicholas Penny's reported dislike of the term 'attributed', which he considers 'scholarly waffle'. Waffle is unwelcome, but there's nothing wrong with being scholarly. And I think the term 'attributed' is indispensable. It admits to a degree of uncertainty that is often unavoidable. Better that the NG is open about areas of scholarly debate rather than tries to impose certainty where there is none.