Friday 3rd July 2016

The SunScreen Shot 2016-06-03 at 17.51.11.png

Topic of article: Domestic affairs

Author: Jen Pharo

Headline: Auntie is anti white

Aim of article: The article is informing its readers about the BBC who have rejected “work applicants because they are white.”

Agenda of article: The Sun uses the word auntie, a word that has been used to describe the BBC, as an alliteration tool in its title for dramatic effect. It appears as if The Sun is making a bold and sensational statement. Perhaps one of the possible reasons it does this is to further emphasise the point about the lack of jobs for British people, especially white British citizens. However, the article appears very divisive and scandalous.

Bias of article: The article has not sought comments from the BBC as to why it decided to reject work applicants because they were not of an ethnic minority background. There is no explanation or suggestion why this was done. If this has indeed happened, why The Sun chooses to generalise this to the whole of the BBC as “anti white” is difficult to ascertain. Overall, the article lacks validity and appears unreliable.

The GuardianScreen Shot 2016-06-03 at 16.45.05.png

Topic of article: Politics

Author: Heather Stewart (Economics editor), Anushka Asthana (Political editor) and Rowena Mason (Political correspondent)

Headline: Cameron: let us not roll the dice on Europe

Aim of article: The article is informing its readers about last night’s live television debate on Sky News in which the Prime Minister faced questions on the EU referendum.

Agenda of article: David Cameron emphasised the economical consequences if the British public voted leave on the day of the referendum on his TV appearance. The article highlights the hostility Cameron was under from the audience and the challenges from Faisal Islam, the interviewer, as he “repeatedly challenged the prime minister as to why the government was failing to meet its target of reducing net annual migration”. The author goes one step further, to stress the point, by quoting what an English literature student said in the televised debate when she interrupted Mr Cameron: “she could spot waffling when she saw it”.

Bias of article: The article appears to be focusing on the ‘grilling’ that Cameron received by mainly pointing out the criticisms of other people involved in the live TV debate and comments by Iain Duncan Smith. Although the article does point out Cameron’s main message, for the article to be more balanced it should mention more on what Cameron said.

The Daily MailScreen Shot 2016-06-03 at 18.21.33

Topic of article: Politics

Author: Ian Drury and James Slack

Headline: EU killers and rapists we’ve failed to deport

Aim of article: The article is informing its readers about the number of EU criminals walking the street and in prison, in England and Wales

Agenda of article: The article appears to be scaremongering its readers by these revelations. It seems that it is trying to undermine the EU by showing its readers that the government and the EU have failed to deport criminals. It also explicitly states two nationalities, Poland and Romania, as two of the top three foreign nationals inside English and Welsh prisons. The already existing anti-immigration feeling in Britain, especially against Eastern Europeans, is further compounded by this article. Although 4,171 may appear to be a large number of criminals, it represents just under 5% of the prison population, it is apparently a high enough number to be “clogging up our jails”. The article also uses strong words such as “killers”, “rapists” and “paedophiles” to describe the EU criminals for dramatic effect.

Bias of article: The authors have not attempted to explain or suggest why these prisoners, who are supposed to be deported back to their respective countries, have been unable to be deported. They have not quoted any sources, especially the government, to understand why this has happened. The article appears one sided and seems to be displaying an anti-EU divisive rhetoric.

The Times Screen Shot 2016-06-03 at 17.50.44.png

Topic of article: Business; Health; Domestic affair

Author: Billy Kenber (Investigations reporter)

Headline: ‘Extortionate’ prices add £260m to NHS drug bill

Aim of article: The article is informing its readers about a small group of entrepreneurs that have increased the price of drugs bought by the NHS by up to “12,500 percent” through an NHS loop-hole

Agenda of article: The articles, which is a Times investigation piece, is exposing millionaire businessmen for taking advantage of a loop-hole that allowed them to charge the NHS more money for drugs that were previously cheaper 6 years ago.  It appears that the authors, by reporting this investigation, want to show its readers about a relatively unethical act. The author also mentions that the extra £262 million a year is “enough to pay for 2000 junior doctors earning £37,000 each”. In light of the junior contract row, perhaps the article is attempting to point out one of the NHS’ flaws and that it should attempt to fix such loop-holes rather than changing contracts for junior doctors. Although what these businessmen have done is entirely legal, it seems that the article is attempting to show the unethical repercussion of a finite resource NHS which will be felt by patients and the ‘tax-payer’.

Bias of article: The article has not attempted to quote the businessmen although they have put a picture of them and their wives. It is difficult to ascertain what The Times is attempting to do with that image. The article has not reported any comment from the NHS either.

Front page images from:

Reviewed by: Bruno Gnaneswaran

If you are interested in becoming part of the Between The Headlines contributors’ team please email for further information.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s