Wednesday 28th September 2016

Papers Reviewed: The Daily Mirror, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Times

The Daily Mirrordaily-mirror

Topic of article: Sports

Headline: Brought Down by His Own Greed

Authors: Ben Rossington (Reporter at Mirror)

Aim of the article: To report on the resignation of Sam Allardyce as the England football manager

Agenda of the article: The article does not attempt to hide it’s own opinion on the cause of Allardyce’s downfall, quoting Alan Shearer’s comment – ‘greed’. It questions why he would have negotiated a £400,000 deal when he had only recently signed a £3 million deal to be England manager and concludes that this was due to his own desire for more cash. By including all the relevant numbers: 67 days in charge, 400,000, 3 million, the paper makes it easy for the reader to compare the values and conclude on their own as to the degree of the man’s crimes.

 Bias of the article: There is no quote from Allardyce or his representatives, and no comments from the FA, meaning that these two sides are not represented in the article. The piece is written to generate a feeling of anger towards a man who has sacrificed English football for his own greed and it is successful in this aim.

The Guardianthe-guardian

Topic of article: Politics, Immigration, EU Referendum

Headline: Corbyn Rules out cutting immigration

Authors: Heather Stewart (Economics Editor), Rowena Mason (Political Correspondent)

Aim of the article: To report on the coming statements regarding Labour’s plans for immigration control from both Jeremy Corbyn and his shadow home secretary, Andy Burnham, and to discuss the growing divides among party members

Agenda of the article: The sub-headline of the article says ‘Labour leader to resist party pressure’ regarding the discussion around how to tackle immigration reform. The paper seems to be placing Corbyn in a position by himself where he is stubbornly standing up against the rest of his party. What is interesting is that it neglects to mention, until the very end, that there are a large number of MPs who support Corbyn and these types of policies. It is easy to question the media’s portrayal of Corbyn when faced with these attitudes. The article goes on to quote extensively backbenchers who are in favour of immigration control, most in response to what they sense as growing public unrest and concern that without offering concrete limits the public will not feel enough has been done. This continues a long running concern that Corbyn is placing the completion of his own ideals above compromising based on public opinion and the demand to seem more ‘electable’. The article finishes with an analysis of the schisms among party members, just to drive home the point about Labour unrest.

Bias of the article: The article seems to follow many of the media’s ideas about Corbyn and his leadership. He is too idealistic, does not listen to public opinion or other members of his party and is presiding over a dividing of Labour. That is not to say that these concerns are not in some ways valid, but rather that it becomes too obvious and predictable when these motifs are repeated so often. There are brief quotes from Corbyn’s spokesman and a small discussion of the ‘migrant impact fund’ but the reader is not given enough information to understand whether this idea is in fact plausible.

The Daily Maildaily-mail

Topic of article: Politics, Immigration, EU Referendum

Headline: Now Mr Corbyn’s in La La Land on Migrants

Author(s): Jason Groves (Deputy Political Editor), Daniel Martin (Chief Political Correspondent)

Aim of the article: To report on Jeremy Corbyn’s upcoming announcement for new plans to tackle immigration

Agenda of the article: The article starts with a frankly rude and degrading headline, calling him Mr Corbyn, a throwback to the slightly posh and mocking way of addressing rival politicians during PMQs and insinuating he is going crazy with his new plans for immigration. This is meant to make the reader feel a sense of mocking and superiority to the ‘silly’ man with his terrible ideas. The paper goes on to claim he is defying the Brexit vote by laying out these new plans, and that these will lead to unlimited immigration from the EU. The reader would immediately feel angry and afraid of the possible future with more immigrants than the country can handle and the paper is working to play on these fears to stoke a backlash. Paradoxically the only line of Corbyn’s it decides to print is that of him declaring ‘we will not sow division or fan the flames of fear’ – something that this article does a good enough job of doing itself!

Bias of the article: The article is mainly an opinion piece, with evocative language being used to discredit Corbyn and drive home the paper’s opinion on the subject. There is little consideration of the plausibility of the suggestions and instead the article resorts to labelling the proposals ‘bizarre’

The Timesthe-times

Topic of article: Sports

Headline: Humiliation for England as Allardyce steps down

Authors: Martyn Ziegler (Chief Sports Reporter)

Aim of the article: To report the recent resignation of the English national team’s football manager, Sam Allardyce, due to alleged improper comments that he made during an undercover sting operation by the Daily Telegraph.

Agenda of the article: The article certainly does not convey great deals of sympathy for Sam Allardyce, nor does it ever purport to have supported him previously in his tenure as England manager. As well as describing the current allegations against him, the paper also mentions previous concerns over his conduct and questions even the original appointment of Allardyce in July. To some the manager is a man who has been the victim of questionable journalistic ethics and ‘crucified’ by the media, but to most he was a victim of his own arrogance and ‘had it coming’, a viewpoint that this article supports. The article ends with a tongue in cheek barb at Allardyce, saying ‘he may have been the shortest-serving football manager but he was also, technically, its most successful. He departed with a 100 per cent record, overseeing only one match’ Ouch.

Bias of the article: There are still question marks over the legality of the comments that Allardyce is purported to have said, and whether the taking of money for additional tasks on top of the England managers job is not just normal practice which has been unfairly focused on in this case. The article does mention that there is still debate over rule breaking and there is an investigation currently going on. It also includes comments from Allardyce and the FA, ensuring that both sides are represented. On the whole though the article feels like it is written to give the reader only one opinion on the subject.

Front page images from:

Reviewed by: Sam Hewitt


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