Papers Reviewed: The Sun, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Times
Topic of article: Politics
Headline: Let 3M more in UK
Authors: Tom Newton Dunn (Political Editor)
Aim of the article: The article is informing readers of key information from the previous day’s Treasury report regarding immigration numbers in Britain.
Agenda of the article: The article effectively has interpreted the statistics in the report to say that staying in the European Union equates to 3 million European migrants moving to the UK by 2030 which the paper has previously shown negative views of. The newspaper considers this a shocking fact which is indicated by the large size of the headline and the serious image of Osbourne accompanying it and generally appears to consequently disagree with the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign and the Chancellor on these grounds.
Bias of the article: The use of language such as “surge” and the wording of the headline itself with “let 3M more in” refers to this commonly used image of European migrants being some invading force taking over Britain. Generally the article appears to separate an independent Britain of British people rather than being part of Europe, or being European, from the outset. Moreover the use of the word “more” spreads further distain for migrants in the UK suggesting that the paper believes there are already too many present in the UK.
Topic of article: Politics
Headline: Gove: pro-EU camp treats us like children
Authors: Anushka Asthana (Political Editor), Tom Clark (Editorial Editor), Nicholas Watt (Chief Political Correspondent)
Aim of the article: The article is describing today’s response from Michael Gove, the justice secretary who is part of the Vote Leave campaign, to yesterday’s Treasury report from George Osbourne, the Chancellor and part of the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign.
Agenda of the article: This article once again is highlighting “just how divisive” the EU referendum is for the Conservative party with personal allegiances and political messages all being disturbed. The key focus of the article is that Gove is criticising his own government’s failure to meet the annual European immigration limit of 100,000 which Osbourne’s report “admitted” yesterday. The article is highlighting that issues like these mean that even if Downing Streets’ remain campaign wins the referendum, which they expect to be very close based on recent polls, the party could be seriously lacking in functional cohesion at the end of it with the currently the “government” message not necessarily representing the whole “party” in power.
Bias of the article: The article quotes from both sides of the debate, giving space for both Michael Gove and George Osbourne, however generally the article is describing how potentially damaging this is for the Conservative party as a whole. Furthermore the key focus illustrated for the remain campaigners is economics whereas for the leave campaigners it is immigration which the newspaper undoubtedly gives less kudos to. Overall, the statistics quoted from the polls show the results at remain 54%, leave 46% and even closer in online polls and this supports the articles neutrality.
The Daily Mail
Topic of article: Politics
Headline: Osbourne’s 3M migrant bombshell
Author(s): James Slack (Political Editor)
Aim of the article: The article is informing readers of the response of Vote Leave Conservatives to George Osbourne’s “pro EU dossier” last night.
Agenda of the article: The article quite clearly criticises George Osbourne and the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign. They describe the “blue-on-blue attacks” and outline many of the criticisms from “tory MPs” including “ministers and two former chancellors” of Osbourne and his “unbelievable” “propaganda” detailing the “perils of Brexit.” The article focusses on the issue of immigration and also criticises the Prime Minister regarding him and Osbourne “effectively giving up on a key pledge” to cut immigration numbers and highlighting that the forecasts for the Treasury report relies on “huge population increase by 2030.” Furthermore, may also be worth noting the “100 glories of Britain” supplement at the top.
Bias of the article: The article only quotes from those criticising the Treasury’s report and when it does provide information from the report it pairs this with an undermining criticism e.g. “Eurosceptic Tories rubbished the dossier’s key claim that…” The article only gives room for accusations and slurs and doesn’t give any detailed analysis of the statistics laid out in the report or how they are incorrect. Overall the tone is negative about Europe and the pro-EU campaign which is further emphasised by saying Osbourne’s “officials compiled the taxpayer-funded report” to add support to the idea of government “propaganda” which is likely intended to anger readers.
Topic of article: Politics; Religion
Headline: Imams are allowed to preach hate in prisons
Authors: Andrew Norfolk (Chief Investigative Reporter)
Aim of the article: The article is informing readers of a leaked report from the Ministry of Justice showing that there is Islamic extremism in prisons throughout England and Wales which is perpetuated by the “Muslim chaplains” within them.
Agenda of the article: The article is steeped deeply in Islamophobia and is using this leaked report to justify this. The article goes a significant way to describe all Muslim prisoners – who they highlight are overrepresented in the prison population – as radicalised and the Muslim prison chaplains as “often” not having the will to prevent the radicalisation process despite their “£40,000” salary, which the paper feels it is relevant to note. The article spreads the feeling of fear of British Muslims and is keen on relating them to the “anti-British” Deobandi movement and saying that the literature “preaches contempt for basic British values” whatever the paper believes “basic British values” are.
Bias of the article: The article presents a generally one-sided view of Islam in Britain and the criminal justice system with critical quotes only being drawn from the review itself. There is no wider viewpoint of Muslims outside of the prison system in the UK or analysis further than “weak corporate guidance and lack of scrutiny inside jails” to explain how the literature was in the prisons. Furthermore the potted description of the Deobandi sect of Islam goes further to undermine the work of Imams within the prisons.
Front page images from: http://en.kiosko.net/uk/
Reviewed by: Alice Edwards