Thursday 24th November 2016

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

The Sun1.jpg

Topic of article: Politics

Headline: Brexfit

Authors: Tom Newton Dunn

Aim of the article: The article reports on Phillip Hammond’s Autumn budget plans as geared to rescue Britain from an economic disaster

 Agenda of the article: The new budget is being discussed within the article as an attempt to mitigate the financial side effects that Brexit will have on the  British economy. It is interesting that as the article discusses the new budget plans, the writer attempts at reassuring readers that this budget will succeed at preventing the economic devastation that could occur as Britain leaves the EU. There are no details being supplied within the article as to what the proposed budget will do and how it could directly affect Britain’s economy after leaving the EU. 

Bias of the article: The new budget by Hammond is being dubbed as ‘Brexfit’ within the article in order to portray the budget as a necessary and complete medicine to tackle the economic negatives that Brexit will bring. This is in light of recent evidence and news that Brexit will have a critical effect on the economy.  Whilst attempting to reassure readers that leaving the EU wont be THAT bad, the article fails to tell readers how the budget is likely to have an influence on the British economy over something as huge as leaving a free trade bloc within an incredibly globalised economy. Nonetheless, any doubts over Brexit is not portrayed within the article, and as a result the article becomes very unbalanced, uninformative and overly optimistic.

The Guardian2.jpg

Topic of article: Politics

Headline: Revealed- the £59 bn cost of Brexit decision

Authors: Heather Stewart, Rowena Mason

Aim of the article: The article discusses Phillip Hammond’s budget plans as an attempt to save Britain from being economically devastated

Agenda of the article: Within this piece, there is a focus on Phillip Hammond’s plans to tackle the £59bn cost that is said to occur as Britian leaves the EU. The article focuses on Hammond’s own awareness of the cost of Brexit, and a sense of urgency this has created for the current government to provide actions to remedy this cost. The first, the Guardian says is the decision to drastically change up the budget system, in order to greater predict the shape of the future economy. The second, is borrowing money in order to raise investment of infrastructure. The article also supplies Labour’s response to the plans proposed by Hammond.

Bias of the article: There is clear intent within the article to provide a balanced account of what the conservative government proposes to deal with the economic disrupt that leaving the EU will do. Additionally, the right questions are raised, for example, how will the government reduce the deficit, something they are so focused on, whilst also attempting to stop the effects of financial devastation that the EU could have. Many sources are additionally disclosed within the article, to provide opinions on the government’s proposals.

The Daily Mail3.jpg

Topic of article: Politics

Headline: So much for Mr Gloomy

Author(s): James Slack

Aim of the article: Again, the article discusses Hammond’s economic budgetplans

Agenda of the article: Shamelessly promoting the notion that the new budget will indeed alleviate the economic pressures that leaving the EU will bring, the DailyMail attempts at informing readers that the UK can go it alone. Taking words completely out of context, and ignoring Hammond’s admission that leaving the EU will cost £54 billion pounds, the story attempts to portray an optimistic Hammond, who boasts about how the UK economy has prospered despite what critics thought of its decision to leave the  EU. This rhetoric even goes as far as to suggest that the proposed £54bn is grossly exaggerated, from an unnamed source, supposedly an expert on economic matters. Interestingly though, whilst the Mail attempts at demonstrating how hardworking families will benefit by leaving the EU, and the new budget, it is middle class families that is reported to be hit the hardest. Although how it will benefit the working class over the middle class, is not really clear.

Bias of the article: Hammond’s speech is taken completely out of context and  barely reported on sufficiently, despite the article being based on mainly his proposed budget. Rather, it portrays a distorted picture that the UK will be okay economically when it leaves the EU and that there is no cause for concern (despite Hammond’s public comments which has demonstrated that there is indeed a cause for worry). There is no effort from the Mail to report on the actual details of the new budget, and why it has been deemed necessary to borrow vast amounts of money. Additionally, the notion that ‘hardworking’ and thus, working class families will benefit from all this economic turbulence is laughable, if you consider the great anxiety about the lack of funding of NHS services and housing. However, the Mail opts to portray a ridiculous image of prosperity instead. 

The Times4.jpg

Topic of article: Politics

Headline: Hammond builds for Brexit

Authors: Francis Elliot, Phillip Aldrick

Aim of the article: The article provides an in-depth account of what Hammond’s budget will involve

Agenda of the article: The story wants to raise understanding of how the budget will shape the future of the country, and what it actually involves. Additionally, the story is adamant about supplying the motivations for the budget, and that is spelled out as anxiety of the negative consequences leaving the EU will have on the economy. Hammond himself is quoted throughout the article in order to explain all of this within the article.

Bias of the article: There is an attempt by the article to report the factual nature of Hammond’s budget as well as the inspiration for it. The article also does well to cover the possible bleak future that his economic plans will have for many, as health and education spending protections could be scrapped and austerity policies may be pursued again.

Front page images from:

Reviewed by: Albana Aruqaj


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