Newspapers reviews: The Sun, The Daily Mail, The Guardian, The Times and the Washington Post
Reviewed by: Bruno
Topic of article: Crime
Author: Chris Pollard
Title: VIP sex ‘victim’ a serial liar
Aim of article: The aim of the article is to inform its readers that one of the victims of the alleged sexual child abuse by ‘a string of VIPs’ has been accused of being a serial liar by his step brother. The Sun also mentions that this increases the pressure on the Met investigation into the handling of historic allegations of sexual abuse against public figures.
Agenda of article: This article is written to delegitimise the victim’s allegations. The current Met review is looking to examine how the police can maintain the confidence of victims while avoiding the appearance of believing any story that they are told. The Sun seems to be taking the allegation of the victim’s stepbrother at face value and consequently it seems that the Sun believes that perhaps it was wrong to believe the victim.
Bias of the article: The Sun does not indicate how reliable the victim’s stepbrother’s claims are making it difficult to know if the victim was really an actual serial liar. It is difficult to find the true definition of a serial liar and one cannot truly know that even if someone was a ‘serial liar’ that they were not telling the truth in this instance. The true relationship of the step brother to the victim is unknown and he may have ulterior motives. The Sun does not give the victim the benefit of the doubt or more insight into the step brother.
The Daily Mail
Topic of article: Health
Author: Sophie Borland (health correspondent)
Title: Flight of the strike doctors
Aim of article: The article wants its readers to know that the imposition of the contracts on junior doctors by Jeremy Hunt will result in a ‘mass exodus to Australia’. It informs the reader on the number of doctors that have already applied for certificates to practice abroad, how much it costs to train a doctor and what the financial loss to the tax payer would be. There is also a comment box making a suggestion of what doctors should do if they leave the country to practice abroad.
Agenda of article: Essentially, what the article really wants its readers to know is that if junior doctors leave the country, it will be a waste of money to the
taxpayer. It is telling its readers that they should be interested in the current situation caused by Jeremy Hunt as it indirectly affects the tax payer due to their contribution towards training a doctor.
Bias of the article: The article is only highlighting one of the negative aspects that might occur due to the imposition of the junior doctor contract. It has not mentioned the impact this contract will have on the NHS or its patients. The comment box further emphasises the unfairness of the contracts to the taxpayer if junior doctor leave the country to practice elsewhere to earn bigger sums of money: “MAY we make a suggestion? Before they go, could the doctors please pay back every penny it cost the taxpayer to train them for jobs that will be very lucrative”.
Topic of article: Health
Author: Denis Campbell (Health policy editor)
Title: Doctors vow to fight on after Hunt imposes new contracts
Aim of article: The Guardian is informing its readers about Jeremy Hunt’s announcement in parliament with regards to the imposition of the junior doctor contracts and the enormous opposition by the BMA and junior doctors to this. It also mentions that the BMA may have to hold a second ballot as they do not know if the first ballot (98% of junior doctors backing strike action) can still form a legal basis for further strikes.
Agenda of article: The article is trying to tell its readers that although Mr Hunt has made this announcement the BMA is still fighting and may consider an all-out strike. Junior doctors and the BMA are furious about this decision and will not give in.
Bias of the article: The article is only representing the view of Junior doctors and not Mr Hunt’s view on why he thinks this is the best option for the public and the NHS. It also fails to mention the reaction of other MPs when this announcement was made in parliament.
Topic of article: Immigration
Author: Hannah Lucinda Smith (Gazantlep) & Catherine Philip (Brussels)
Title: Turkey threatens Europe with millions of migrants
Aim of article: The aim of the article is to inform its readers that the president of Turkey, Mr Erdogan, is threatening Europe that Turkey will move the refugees it has into Europe. The president has been critical of the UN and its suggestions to reopen borders with Syria to allow more refugees. It also mentions that Russia has warned of a ‘new world war’ if there is involvement of Gulf states in Syria.
Agenda of article: The article is trying to warn its readers that there is a potential threat that millions of migrants will arrive in European cities. It also used the word migrants rather than refugees that are fleeing from the Syrian civil war. This further perpetuates the negative connotation of migrants. The overall tone of the article is ominous and is giving no sense of hope.
Bias of the article: The article is only mentioning the possible threat of a potential influx of ‘migrants’ to Europe and not the possible benefits that could be gained. Although the intentions of the Turkish president could prove to be decisive, we are unaware of what the current feeling of opening Turkey’s border with Syria is amongst the Turkish population. The views of Europe or the UN are not mentioned either and what they can do to help the situation in Turkey is not explored
The Washington Post
Topic of article: Foreign affairs
Author: Karen DeYoung
Title: U.S., Russian agree to a half in Syrian war
Aim of article: The Washington Post is trying to inform its readers that the U.S., Russia and other powers have agreed to a “cessation of hostilities” to take place within the next week in Syria’s civil war. The secretary of state, John Kerry, however, warns that these are merely words and action needs to be seen on the ground.
Agenda of article: The article seems to have a pessimistic tone to it. Although a ceasefire has been agreed it mentions that the Russian Foreign Minister states that air strikes will still go to fight ‘terrorist’ groups. Who will actually be targeted is not clear as some groups may fight alongside the U.S.
Bias of the article: The views of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, the president where the aforementioned conflict is happening, are not mentioned or known. This makes it difficult to know or understand the true impact of the cessation of hostilities.
Newspaper front page source: http://en.kiosko.net/