Papers Reviewed: The Sun, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Times
Topic of article: Sports
Headline: Hung out to Pie
Author(s): Jonathan Reilly (Senior Reporter)
Analysis: Gather support for the reserve keeper who was implicated in a betting probe after being filmed eating a pie on TV. The article reports that there has been massive fury at the sacking of the pie-eating coach and keeper after hundreds had signed a petition to reinstate him. The paper seems to be supporting the keeper, telling all the readers that there is fury at the decisions, but then quickly quotes the keeper who says his friends had put money on the bet and had surely benefitted from him eating a pie, seemingly admitting his guilt. He then attempts to claim it was ‘just me be hungry’ but it seems unlikely he has much of a case.
Topic of article: Economics, Brexit
Headline: City’s stability ‘at risk from chaotic Brexit’
Author(s): Dan Roberts (Brexit Policy Editor) and Jill Treanor (City Editor)
Analysis: Investigate the effects Brexit may have on the London Financial Market. This article continues a week-long series that aims to report on the difficulties of Britain’s transition to Brexit, with the intention being to show the public that any deal created is full of uncertainty and concern, due to factors that the public are unaware of. The Guardian was a heavily pro-remain paper and it may be trying to reason with those who voted to leave by pointing out some of the difficulties not mentioned by the many anti-EU groups. How many of them will read this article is another question, not negating the importance of the issues of course, but in some ways telling people that they ‘cant possibly imagine’ some of the intricacies of the Brexit transition will only turn people away. The leave campaign and voters have repeatedly said ‘they are sick of experts’ telling them what to do, and would this article sound similar to them? The correct manner in which the attitudes should be confronted has not been identified but here the Guardian attempts to lay out facts through interviews with members of the major banks. They point out the uncertainty of any Brexit deal and that even this simple unknown may result in banks pulling out of Britain and damaging the economy. The sources of the material are mainly interviews with bankers, which are hard to validate but the information they speak about may be available online, so verification of the facts could still be achieved.
The Daily Mail
Topic of article: Crime, Terrorism
Headline: I.S. suicide bomber YOU paid £1million
Author(s): Chris Greenwood (Chief Crime Correspondent), Ian Drury (Home Affairs Correspondent) and Jim Norton (North West Reporter)
Analysis: Inform the readers about the identify of a recently deceased suicide bomber and comment on who was to blame for his release from Guantanamo and subsequent deadly actions. The paper leads with the grinning photo of the bomber that will later be referenced heavily in the article, used as a strong visual aid in drawing readers in. The happiness of the pose, offset by the morbidity of the situation, makes for powerful imagery and definitely draws attention. The word ‘YOU’ is underlined and the paper uses this to claim that the average member of the public paid the bomber the money he was given as compensation – this creates injustice and anger in the reader and revulsion towards the man. What the article neglects to do, since it creates anger and rejection so well, is consider the man as a human. There is no discussion of his treatment in Guantanamo and the effects this may have had on his attitude to the world. The paper makes sure to blame the previous Labour government under Tony Blair, but does not consider the role Cameron had in dealing with the current I.S. situation. This reporting is a one-sided and one-dimensional analysis of a situation that requires more thought, not less, in order for it to be understood.
Topic of article: Immigration, Brexit
Headline: Britain will stay open to EU migrants, Davis admits
Author(s): Sam Coates (Deputy Political Editor), Oliver Wright (Policy Editor) and Jerome Starkey (National Correspondent)
Analysis: Report on recent comments made by David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, while on a diplomatic trip in Easter Europe, and analyse what they mean for the Government’s stance. In comments that won’t surprise any remain voter and may horrify the majority of leave voters, Davis admitted that immigration will still continue in the coming years and after Brexit, as Britain has always depended on ‘clever, talented people come(ing) to Britain.’ The article points out that these remarks were not included in the official statement after his visit, implying that the government did not want to draw attention to the issue, and promptly raises questions about May’s ability to reach her goal of reduced immigration. Readers are asked to compare Davis’s comments with both the official stance of the Government and the stance of more anti-EU campaigners like Arron Banks and Ian Duncan Smith, allowing for easier juxtaposition of the opposing ideals. How can the government minister say one thing and do another, so to speak? It brings home the messy situation May could find herself in if there was deeper analysis and questioning of her actions by the major media outlets and opposition.
Front page images from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers
Reviewed by: Sam Hewitt