Papers Reviewed: The Sun, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Times
Topic of article: Entertainment
Headline: Dyered & emotional
Author(s): Lauren Probert (Reporter); Simon Boyle (Associate Showbiz Editor)
Analysis: The Sun are reporting the contents of a video of Danny Dyer appearing distressed, or – as they imply- intoxicated, at the National Television Awards last month. The article is in the context that Dyer has taken a leave of absence from his role in EastEnders, which the article implies is due to his “wild lifestyle.” The article suggests that Dyer is “boozy” potentially that he is alcohol dependent, and that this was made clear as other actors and his wife tried to resolve his “meltdown” at the awards. As this is based on a video and it isn’t clear what is being discussed by Dyer or the context of the situation, it is difficult to conclude how reliable this evidence is. There is no other sources provided other than the video and although the tone is sympathetic in some ways – the headline playing on tired and emotional – by highlighting him as “boozy” and “ranting” may not be helpful for Dyer’s public face.
Topic of article: Politics
Headline: ‘Blackmail’ tactics will backfire, EU leaders warn May
Author(s): Daniel Boffey (Brussels Bureau chief), Dan Roberts (Brexit Policy Editor), Jon Henley (European Affairs Correspondent)
Analysis: In the first in the Guardian’s Britain’s Brexit Gamble series, the article describes that European leaders are unsupportive of Britain’s Brexit strategy. The sources the article draws from are discussion with “three parliamentary leaders and a close ally of the German chancellor” and a “leaked European parliament report” that the newspaper had access to. Both of these, and the whole article, are highly critical of the “divide and rule tactics” and emphasise the sense that this is shared in “many European capitals.” Moreover there is a sense of desperation in a “high-stakes charm offensive” as Brexit minister David Davis is described as visiting smaller, less anti-Brexit, countries in order to foster trade deals with them such as Finland and Sweden. The article includes almost no positive description of what may be to come with Brexit and the article overwhelmingly works to undermine the government’s position with very little alternative view.
Topic of article: Health
Headline: NHS cuts 15,000 beds in 6 years
Author(s): Sophie Borland (Health Editor)
Analysis: The article cites a report published today that includes the statistic of a reduction of hospital beds for patients at night by 15,000 since 2010/11, this adds to the sense “breaking point” NHS that has regularly been reported by the newspaper. The Mail cites the“NHS obsession with shifting care out of hospital” to under-resourced GP surgeries and councils and “a social care crisis, immigration and an aging population” meaning hat hospital beds are in high demand and implies that reducing beds is the wrong thing to do. It is unclear on the specific report they are referencing or how they came up with the figure of 15,000 beds being equivalent to “24 hospitals” or “10% fall in NHS beds.” Again the paper brings the immigrants putting strain on the NHS argument with no actual substantiation of this claim. The article doesn’t provide any source of reason for why the beds have been cut other than this “NHS obsession” and whether resources have been put into community-based care instead.
Topic of article: Politics; Economics
Headline: Lies fuelling revolt over rates, insist ministers
Author(s): Oliver Wright (Policy Editor)
Analysis: The article describes the contents of a letter from two Conservative ministers, written to Conservative MPs over the weekend, condemning the criticism of increased business rates as being caused by media manipulation. This article implies that the reason the letter was written was that there could be a sufficient “backbench Tory pressure” on the chancellor Phillip Hammond, that he may have to reverse the changes to business rates. Therefore the letter was written to persuade this revolting Conservatives to reconsider their position. Furthermore they quote “one senior Conservative MP” that describes this letter as “completely counterproductive” and describe that the letter doesn’t address a key concern of some that online companies such as Amazon will not be receiving such increase in rates. Overall the article is supportive of those conservatives who may choose to stand against the changes and uses statistics from individual MP’s constituencies to highlight how some of the cabinet and backbench constituencies may be affected worst.
Reviewed by: Alice Edwards