Global News

Thursday 9th June 2016

Paper reviewed: The Scotsman

The ScotsmanScreen Shot 2016-06-09 at 16.56.52

Topic of article: Politics

Author: Paris Gourtsoyannis (Westminster correspondent)

Heading: Osborne: ‘Brexit would mean loss of 43,000 Scottish jobs’

Aim of article: The article is informing its readers about George Osborne’s economic warning to Scotland if Britain decided to leave the EU.

Agenda of article: With just two weeks to go until Britain decides whether it wishes to remain or leave the European Union, the remain camp, notably George Osborne, is campaigning in Scotland. Furthermore, Nicola Sturgeon is debating Brexit leader Boris Johnson, adding significance to this article. Britain leaving the EU has its ramification, particularly with the prospect of Scotland manifesting its own second referendum. Although, the majority of Scotland is pro-EU (according to yougov polls), Scotland will have to decide whether it would like to be in the British union or European union if Britain leaves the EU. This article highlights why leaving the EU would be disadvantageous to Scotland.

Bias of article: The article is only quoting George Osborne, however, seeing as he is the Chancellor, it adds relative (due to fear-mongering on both sides) credibility to the article. The author does not mention any economic benefits of leaving the EU.

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.

Thursday 2nd June 2016

Papers Reviewed: The Jerusalem Post

The Jerusalem Post13321092_10153685677601274_723433649_o

Topic of article: Politics

Headline: Netanyahu: Violence will not put our right to Jerusalem in doubt

Authors: Lahav Barkov

Aim of the article: To report on the recent discussions surrounding Israel’s claims to parts of Jerusalem

Agenda of the article: To defend the presence of Israeli people in parts of Jerusalem that UNESCO and perhaps parts of the international world have apparently not recognised as being Israeli. The article starts off by repeating Netanyahu’s pronouncement that Israel doesn’t have to apologise for its actions, immediately giving the article a defensive tone. This theme is carried through the page, as the paper seeks to justify Israeli control of Jerusalem by evoking Biblical history. In a country in which religion plays such a large role in sculpting a world view this is hardly surprising and would certainly serve to reinforce readers of the paper’s opinions on the subject. The paper further solidifies its defence of the Israeli position by citing the violence that ‘the other side’ have been performing, firmly placing Israel as a form of victim, rather than culpable for their part in events.

Bias of the article: As this is an Israeli newspaper there is a heavily pro-Israel tone to the writing and so we do not have any sources from the Palestinian side or from those in UNESCO who made the recent decision regarding Israeli claims. What is lacking is perhaps a further look at the historical context of the region and the competing claims of ownership surrounding the region.

Front page images from:

Reviewed by: Sam Hewitt

Thursday 26th May 2016

Papers Reviewed: The New York Times (United States)

The New York TimesScreen Shot 2016-05-26 at 19.47.57

Topic of article: Politics

Headline: State Dept. report faults Clinton on email server

Authors: Steve Lee Myers (News Correspondent), Eric Lichtblau (Washington Bureau Reporter)

Aim of the article: The article informs readers that the State Department’s inspector general has publically criticised Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email server to conduct official state business.

Agenda of the article: The paper describes the email “controversy that has shadowed Mrs Clinton’s campaign” being given a new lease of life by the inspector general’s damning report to congress on Clinton’s behaviour. This includes saying her behaviour posed “significant security risks.” The article is dominated by this report and includes noting that Clinton did not ask for permission to use her personal server, which she “would not have received if she had”, clearly contravened the rules by “instructing” inquisitive critics “never to speak of” the issue again and effectively implying that – being “the nation’s top diplomat” – she should have known better. The writers also highlight that this report, in addition to “an F.B.I. investigation and other legal challenges” and “Republican critics”, is likely to keep this an enduring blight on Clinton’s reputation and blunts her “hopes of a policy-based campaign.”

Bias of the article: The article is mostly focussed on the criticisms provided by the inspector general and therefore is largely negative about Clinton’s behaviour and is itself contributing to the media storm by reporting this story. However they do highlight that “other senior officials” also used personal servers in the past but undermine this by saying “the rules became clear” by the time of Clinton’s arrival. The article also notes “Mrs Clinton’s previous statements defending her use” and says that she and “her aides have played down the inquiries” making Clinton appear to be further in the wrong by suppressing this “controversy”. There are no sources or quotes provided except from the report itself. Therefore there are no alternate opinion on the issue, for example from Clinton’s campaign team, and no comment on the wider impact of this “shadow” over the nomination campaigns.

Front page images from:

Reviewed by: Alice Edwards

We are recruiting! If you are interested in becoming part of the Between The Headlines team drop us an email at