Friday 19th May 2017

Friday 19th May 2017

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

The SunThe Sun 19 May

Topic of article: UK Politics


Author(s): Tom Newton Dunn (Political editor)

Analysis: Teresa May has released the conservative party manifesto yesterday, listing some values not traditionally seen as “conservative” in what some are seeing as an attempt to win over “socialist voters”. Today The Sun claims that the conservative party now closely resembles the Labour party as the paper says she has issued “traditional labour battle cries” such as increased spending on the NHS and “shifting taxpayers’ cash away from better-off older folk”. This is largely an opinion piece, giving us only one fact (though vague) about the newly released manifesto: that it includes more funding for the NHS. What else is included in this new manifesto? What have other party leaders responded with? Though the political viewpoints of the authors of the other front page stories are more clearly seen today (see below), the Sun does well to not present theirs today. While they do make a sweeping statement that the Conservative party is turning ‘red’, there is no indication of what The Sun thinks of this.


The Guardianguardian 19 May.jpg

Topic of article:  UK Politics

Headline: May manifesto rejects legacy of Cameron era

Author(s): Heather Stewart (Political editor); Rowena Mason (Deputy political editor)

Analysis: Teresa May released the Conservative Party’s manifesto yesterday, with strong criticisms from the Labour party. The manifesto promises more state involvement with the economy, while not including any accompanying costing document, leading to accusations from the Labour party that the manifesto was an “84-page blank cheque”. The Guardian presents a strongly anti-conservative piece on their front page today. While the article includes multiple direct quotes from May’s speech yesterday, there are multiple comparisons drawn between this manifestos and the Labour manifesto leading the reader to assume that the Labour party is a better choice. Critical quotes have also been given from the Association of School and College Leaders and the Health Foundation, both of whom agree that the numbers presented by the party just don’t add up. However, there are some very striking passages from the document presented here, indicating some major changes in the conservative party’s public messages this year as they state “We reject the cult of selfish individualism. We abhor social division, injustice, unfairness and inequality.” For full coverage of all of this election’s manifestos from the BTH team, stay tuned.

Daily Maildaily_mail 19 May

Topic of article: UK Politics


Author(s): Jason Groves (Political Editor)

Analysis: Yesterday Teresa May unveiled the conservative party’s manifesto. The Daily Mail presents a front page strongly supporting Teresa May for the upcoming election. Besides strongly opinionated statements, the article gives very few clear-cut facts. All that we know so far is that the conservative manifesto has been released and that it has a large focus on working class families. The author claims May was remarkably “honest”, though we have no idea what she was being honest about. The political views of the story’s author are further suggested by another subjective statement claiming that the manifestos by the other political parties were littered with ‘unrealisitic promises”. And that’s all we have to go on for today. Little news and loads of opinion.


The Timesthe_times 19 May

Topic of article: UK Politics

Headline: Mainstream May reaches out to Labour heartlands

Author(s): Francis Elliott (Political Editor)

Analysis: Teresa May launched the conservative manifesto for the upcoming UK general election, yesterday. So what can we glean from this front page about this 84 page manifesto? The conservatives will not hold true to their promises from two years ago to address: the falling living standards; child poverty; or freeze income tax, VAT or national insurance. (Though let’s be honest, what could we expect especially seeing as the leader of the Conservative party has indeed changed and she has the right to make her own path…right?). The party is promising to increase NHS spending by £8 billion over 5 years, and increase the school budget by £4 billion. The rest of the article focuses on how May is targeting “mainstream Britain” (some very entertaining new terminology that sounds like the name of the newest indie rock band), with comments from Jermy Corbyn (the leader of the Labour party), and direct quotes from May’s speech. May is appealing to the working class voters, while trying to assure us all that she is the best candidate to securing a good Brexit deal: “With the right Brexit deal secured, my mainstream government will deliver for mainstream Britain.” We can see the author’s own political views here as they claim in their opening line that the conservatives, while trying to appeal to “mainstream Britain” will be shifting money and resources away from the middle class and elderly. This line is stated as a fact, while the only supporting evidence of this on the front page is from a direct quote from Corbyn. Still looking for unbiased coverage of each party’s election Manifesto? Stay tuned with BTH, we’ll be posting them shortly!


Front page images from: Kiokso (

Reviewed by: Anjali Menezes


Tuesday 16th May 2017

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

The Sun Screen Shot 2017-05-16 at 18.34.36.png

Topic of article: Crime

Headline: Monster Brady is dead

Author(s): Richard Moriarty

Analysis: The article informs its readers about the death of Ian Brady the ‘Moors murderer’. The font of the title covers almost over 50-60% of the front page making the headline very attention grabbing. The short article evokes a sense of injustice as the author describes how Ian Brady received round-the-clock care from nurses and died with dignity despite not being able to offer this to his victims. Although health care is a universal human right, it is difficult not to feel a sense of injustice.

The GuardianScreen Shot 2017-05-16 at 17.54.41.png

Topic of article:  Politics

Headline: Labour reveals ‘fat cat’ tax pledge aimed at reining in excessive pay

Author(s): Anushka Asthana and Severin Carrell

Analysis: The author informs the reader about Labour’s plan to tax the ‘fat cats’ to disincentivise excessive pay and thereby reducing excessive pay in big businesses, city banks and Premier League clubs. The author describes the proposal where companies will be charged 2.5% or 5% levy on earnings above £330,000 and £500,000 respectively. The author adds other tax reforms that the Labour party plans to implement as well as other manifesto promises. Since the leak of Labour’s manifesto, some have attempted to discredit the pledges made by Labour by undermining the costing and financial aspect of how they will fund the promises made. However, the overall tone of this article by The Guardian appears supportive of Labour by positively showing how its manifesto will be funded.

The Daily MailScreen Shot 2017-05-16 at 18.27.05

Topic of article: Crime

Headline: Monster of the Moors is dead

Author(s): James Tozer and Ian Drury

Analysis: The Daily Mail is informing its readers about the death of Ian Brady, “the monster of the Moors”. The author describes to the reader Ian Brady was suffering from untreatable cancer and emphysema. Despite being caught for some of the crimes Ian Brady and his lover Myra Hindley had committed they both decided not to reveal any information related to the crimes to the authorities. It leaves “the issue of where he dumped the body of 12-year old Keith Bennett” unsolved. The tone of this article appears matter-of-fact and not much is revealed about the circumstances surrounding his death.

The TimesScreen Shot 2017-05-16 at 18.17.21

Topic of article: Politics

Headline: Drug firm faces fine of £220 for hiking prices

Author(s): Billy Kenber

Analysis: The author informs its readers about the recent fine imposed on a drug company for hiking the prices of its cancer drugs. A fine of £220 million for Aspen Pharmacare has been imposed following an EU investigation. The author makes it clear, without explicitly writing it, that it appears unethical and immoral to increase cancer drug prices by 1,200 per cent for cancer patients in dying need of therapy. Drug companies have significant power and although they are necessary for the production and distribution of drugs, they often serve their shareholders and not patients, with the aim to maximise profit. It is this drive for profit that render drug companies dangerous and can jeopardise the health of many. Interestingly, this news article portrays the EU in a positive light and demonstrates that it was the EU leading the investigation and imposing fines to avoid these hazardous practices from drug companies.

Front page images from:

Reviewed by: Bruno Gnaneswaran

Wednesday 10th May, 2017

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

The Daily MirrorMirror

Topic of article: National News

Headline: School trip girl, 11, dies at theme park

Author(s): Martin Fricker (Senior Reporter)

Analysis: Inform readers about the tragic accident that occurred at Drayton Manor theme park on Tuesday. The Mirror, a tabloid newspaper, leads with the story of the theme park accident, in the knowledge that tragic accidents like this will always sell better than any politics or world events headlines. The article and sub-heading goes on to paint a vivid picture of the incident, describing ‘horrified friends’ as they ‘looked on’, saying she ‘plunged to her death’. These phrases are very emotive and help to elevate the readers already developed sense of sadness, as well as, along with an action picture of the ride, allowing them to almost re-imagine the scene as it happened – feeding the morbid fascination hidden inside all of us. The Mirror includes a quote from the theme park, allowing them to have an apologetic voice with the terrible accident.

The GuardianGuardian

Topic of article: Politics

Headline: Corbyn: business tax rise will pay for £6bn boost to schools

Author(s): Heather Stewart (Joint Political Editor), Jessica Elgot (Westminster Political Reporter)

Analysis: Report on Corbyn and Labour’s newest election pledge to overturn corporation tax and raise cash to fund numerous new policies. The Guardian leads its front-page with a Labour election slogan, again giving a voice in the media to Labour policies, something that is often lacking. Just a quick browse through today’s front pages will show no mention of Labour policies, replaced by smiling pictures of May and her husband and stories of Labour ‘splits’. The Guardian endeavours, often alone to report the positive movements of the Labour party. The article uses an effective bullet-point system to summarise the main pledges, enabling the reader to quickly glance and take-in the information. There is a lot of talk about Labour ‘differentiating from the Tories’, with this statement once seen as a common complaint levelled at the party but perhaps being consciously shown here to not be an issue. Reporting on the accusations aimed at the current Conservative government regarding their education policies creates a juxtaposition between the positive and hopeful Labour policies vs the maligned and damaging Tory policies, leading readers towards a decision on which party is best. There are no quotes or sources from either party which would have given a better balanced view on the story.

The Daily MailMail

Topic of article: National News

Headline: Girl, 11, dies in theme park horror

Author(s): Andy Dolan (Midlands News Reporter)

Analysis: Inform readers about the tragic accident that occurred at Drayton Manor theme park on Tuesday. The Mail chooses a simple and non-political headline today, instead focusing on the theme park accident, because they know that people cannot resist a good accident story. There is something fascinating about the ability for a tragic story to draw attention so much more effectively than anything else, and this is story must surely have been chosen on this understanding. The mention of the girl’s age is done to accentuate the fact that this was a young child and the accident that much more tragic. The article goes on to semi-accuse the theme park of negligence, based on visitor reports, which seems a slightly stunning change of direction. If indeed there had been knowledge of malfunctioning rides for two days before the accident then surely this is a criminal case, yet the Mail simply throws it in there as if this comment means nothing. There is also a careful connection formed between this accident and those at Alton Towers two years ago, increasing both the sadness of the incident and perhaps the injustice felt by readers who remember the culpability of the theme park in that instance. A quote from the theme park or police would have given additional information to the reader.

The TimesTimes

Topic of article: Health/Public Services

Headline: Stop splitting up elderly couples

Author(s): Greg Hurst (Social Affairs Editor), Rosemary Bennett (Social Affairs Correspondent)

Analysis: Report on comments made by the president of the family division of the High Court regarding the division of elderly couples when they move to social housing. The headline plays to the public’s emotional connection and inherent respect for elderly citizens, as the stark accusation it makes will no doubt make readers consider their own parents being split when older and generate an angry or protective response. The practice of splitting older couples is no doubt a terrible thing to do but this article lacks any sense of deeper analysis into the issue. Content to quote repeated social service directors and judges about the inhumanity of the situation, it feels as if the writers have decided that the superficial sense of anger and injustice associated with their headline must be reinforced and sustained through the reading of the article. But does patting yourself on the back about your own sense of injustice really do much good? There is no analysis of the reasons that care-homes are struggling to accommodate elderly couples, or the general decline of social support that has made every care-home workers’ job that much harder. A vilification of care-homes without an understanding of deeper issues does no one any good, least of all those elderly couples that you claim to have such a serious concern about.

Front page images from: and

Reviewed by: Sam Hewitt


Tuesday 9th May 2017

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

The SunScreen Shot 2017-05-09 at 16.26.15.png

Topic of article: Politics

Headline: Why I tried to kill trump

Author(s): Chris Pollard

Analysis: The Sun informs its readers about a British man who attempted to murder President Trump at a political rally. Although Donald Trump is incredibly polarising and divisive, the world was shocked to see a murder attempt on him. Moreover, there was this considerable curiosity as to what the motive was. The author tells us that it was a mental health disorder, more specifically a psychotic episode, which led to the attempted murder of Trump by Michael Sandford. It is pleasing to hear that The Sun is reporting that he is now back home with his family after being released from jail. The Sun appears to be sympathetic to this British man but it is difficult not to question whether they would have been as kind if the man was not a Caucasian British male. Would he have been branded a terrorist if he was Muslim? It would not surprise me if instead of the pictures chosen of Michael Sandford which depicts him as a smiley happy man, that probably strange negatively looking pictures were plastered on the front page if the man was not caucasian. This is fairly hypocritical of The Sun as it never explores whether there are underlying mental health issues with terrorists as it kindly has for this British man.

The GuardianScreen Shot 2017-05-09 at 15.31.05.png

Topic of article:  Politics

Headline: Corbyn pins election hopes on housing reform pledges

Author(s): Rowena Mason; Anushka Asthana

Analysis: The Guardian informs its readers about housing reforms being a high priority for Labour and its leader Jeremy Corbyn.  This is a time where the political parties are gearing up towards creating their party manifesto  and outlining their key pledges to help win voters. It appears that Labour has decided housing reform tops that list. House prices and rent have been soaring making housing unaffordable for many and it is possible that this pledge will attract many voters but will it be enough to attract voters who are unconvinced of Corbyn’s leadership? It is interesting to note that the authors, in their first sentence, have chosen to include that Corbyn was “not downhearted after difficult local election results..” despite the article being about housing reforms. Perhaps it is this sort of tone in the media, that is more often than not, targeted at Corbyn to undermine his leadership.

The Daily MailScreen Shot 2017-05-09 at 16.10.32

Topic of article: Politics

Headline: £100 off your energy bill

Author(s): Jason Groves (Political editor)

Analysis: The Daily Mail is informing its readers about Theresa May’s pledge to cap energy prices. The overall tone, in contrast to The Times covering the same story, is positive and supportive towards Theresa May. The Daily Mail has been a long-standing supporter of the Conservative party and it comes to no surprise that it publishes a story which is uncritical of this pledge. The attention grabbing headlines which explicitly mentions a sum of £100 will be saved is rather misleading, as in order to cap prices, those who find the cheapest deals will probably have to pay more and will not gain a “£100”. It is bemusing and almost arrogant to see a newspaper choosing to be so openly in favour of Theresa May and her party and not in favour of true journalism or even appearing to be in favour of it.

The Times Screen Shot 2017-05-09 at 15.56.42

Topic of article: Poltics

Headline: May faces backlash over energy price cap

Author(s): Francis Elliott (Political Editor); Emily Gosden (Energy Editor)

Analysis: The Times is informing its readers of the promise made by the Conservative party to cap energy prices for 17 million households. Two thirds of the population are on expensive tariffs and Theresa May wants to cap energy prices. The general tone of the article appears critical of the proposed promise with the majority of the article mentioning and sourcing those who oppose this move such as energy companies, senior tory officials and city analysts. The author also mentions how this policy appears identical to the one suggested by Ed Milliband, the former Labour leader, in 2013 and this would not be a first for the Tories, highjacking Ed Milliband’s previous policy suggestions. Again, as we are getting right in middle of the election campaign, it appears that the Conservatives have chosen to pursue this strategy to win voters and it is fairly surprising to hear anything other than Brexit and a “strong and stable leadership” rhetoric.

Front page images from:;

Reviewed by: Bruno Gnaneswaran


Tuesday 2nd May 2017

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

The SunScreen Shot 2017-05-02 at 18.01.39.png

Topic of article: Home affairs

Headline: Terrorists cushty life on benefits in Peckham

Author(s): Matt Wilkinson and Dan Sales

Analysis: The article attempts to inform its readers about a formerly convicted terrorist who is now on UK benefits. This is a great example of The Sun’s poor journalism. The author appears to want to create a divisive sentiment in its readers. Its title and very short article on the front page creates a divisive rhetoric promoting an ‘us’ vs ‘them’ attitude. The Sun fails to inform its reader about the circumstances of this man and why he can’t be sent back to Iran. Perhaps there is a legitimate reason why he cannot go back and it would be unfair to deprive this man of his basic needs. Naming this man and putting a picture of him on the front page, can only bring about negative consequences for him, which seems very unfair as he must be out of prison after having served his sentence. The Sun fails us to show this side of the story. Instead, as usual, it portrays a one-sided news story which is detrimental for a compassionate society. Why does The Sun, day-to-day, choose to shy away from its duty of proper journalism? One possible suggestion could be that perhaps it has a lot to gain from creating and promoting a divisive rhetoric.

The Guardian Screen Shot 2017-05-02 at 17.34.59.png

Topic of article: Politics

Headline: May fights accusation of botched and humiliating start to Brexit talks

Author(s):  Dan Roberts, Rajeev Syal and Daniel Boffey

Analysis: The article informs its readers about the Downing street dinner that occurred with Theresa May and Jean-Claude Juncker, the European commission chief. This report makes Theresa May look unfavourable. Although the Prime Minister dismisses this as “Brussels gossip”, it appears quite clearly that Brexit negotiations have not begun very well. The report claims that Mr Juncker left saying “I’m leaving Downing Street 10 times more sceptical than I was before”. In contrast, the author appears to describe the EU as organised and with a clear plan in mind. The Guardian has used an unnamed, first hand source to describe the events the negotiation dinner. Overall, this is quite a damning and unwelcoming report for the Conservatives.  These events undermine the repetitive  and unsubstantiated message, a strong and stable leadership, that Theresa May and her party have been using to promote themselves in the election campaign.

The Daily MailScreen Shot 2017-05-02 at 18.01.28

Topic of article: Health

Headline: Exploited by cash-for-eggs IVF clinics

Author(s): Paul Bentley and Sara Smyth

Analysis: The article informs its readers about Women on low incomes that are being exploited for their eggs. The title, covering almost half the page, and the labelling of this story with “Investigations Unit” is very attention grabbing. It seems that the Daily Mail is exposing an unethical practice from IVF clinics, by showing its readers that IVF clinics are telling its patients that “an egg isn’t a baby” and that doctors could trade their “eggs for cash and use the money to fund her (their) treatment”. Although this appears unethical, the Daily Mail does not show its readers whether these are isolated incidents or whether this is widespread practice. This makes it difficult to put it into perspective. Fertility can be a very sensitive subject which aids the Daily Mail in creating a tone of injustice. The author fails to paint a bigger picture and does not give some background on the cuts in funding for IVF treatment which could put this news story in perspective.

The TimesScreen Shot 2017-05-02 at 17.50.07

Topic of article: Economy, industry

Headline: Fears for car market amid loan mis-selling

Author(s): Harry Wilson (City editor)

Analysis: The article informs its reader about the potential of a loan mis-selling scandal where 90% of new cars are sold through finance deals, even to those with a poor credit history. The Times appears to be one of the first journalist group to report on a potential imminent scandal. The market has been fraught with loans being mis-sold, from mortgages to PPI and now this. This can have significant consequences to businesses, employees and subsequently families. The author uses ‘experts’ and ‘analysts’ as sources but apart from one source, he does not quote them or name them, which detracts from the reliability of the article. Although the article portrays a doom and gloom scenario, it mentions that there is an investigation at the moment which will intervene if there is any wrongdoing.  It seems that, unregulated, businesses will do anything for profit and mis-sell loans to customers, with the poorest usually more commonly affected.

Front page images from:

Reviewed by: Bruno Gnaneswaran

Friday 5th May 2017

Friday 5th May 2017

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

The Sun

sun.05.04.17.jpgTopic of article: Politics


Author(s): Not stated

Analysis: After 70 years of service, Prince Philip is retiring. The Sun celebrates the achievements of Prince Philip here, using a very celebratory tone, with a picture of a smiling Prince and a very witty headline along with a reference to countless “gaffes” that the Prince has made in the past, that as The Sun says, “…made us giggle”. Its an interesting take on the many public blunders that The Prince has made. Of course we don’t know which of these “gaffes” the paper thinks were funny. I for one am not laughing at some of his quite abrasive comments, such as telling a group of British student in China “If you stay here much longer, you’ll be slitty-eyed”. Even in this seemingly light-hearted front page, the political views of the Sun shine through (see what I did there?). They’re not the only paper to think some of his comments were just funny. The above quote was taken from a Telegraph article, listing 48 of Prince Philip’s greatest gaffes and funny moments. Besides this interesting point, the front page has very little text, with the paper instead choosing to numerically sum up the Prince’s career, including over five thousand speeches.


The Guardianguardian.05.05.17.jpg

Topic of article:  Politics

Headline: Show respect in Brexit talks, Tusk tells May

Author(s): Daniel Boffey (policy editor); Heather Stewart (political editor)

Analysis: The European Council President, Donald Tusk has called for all participants in the Brexit talks to show ‘discretion, moderation and mutual respect”. The opening sentence of the article suggested that Tusk was referring directly to Teresa May, though this was a clever manipulation of the facts by the Guardian in order to portray an anti-conservative picture. It is only after reading more of the article that a more balanced picture is presented. Tusk’s comments were directed at all parties involved in the Brexit talks, and the article points out a number of questionable actions taken by members, including May’s claims that various officials were attempting to meddle in the upcoming UK elections, and the leak in the German press of an “apparently frosty” dinner held at 10 Downing Street. The bulk of the text focuses on Tusk’s comments, with some references to “conservative strategists” (who remain unnamed) and the European commission’s chief spokesman. What is evident in this article is the growing frustrations and even fear, over Brexit negotiations. It should also be noted here that while the Guardian is the only paper not to have a headline about Prince Philip, the front page still features his picture. Instead of the smiling and happy Prince seen on the other papers, we see here a much more haggard and older looking prince, sans smile, through a car window.

Daily Maildaily_mail.05.05.17.jpg

Topic of article: Politics

Headline: The nations salutes you, sir

Author(s): Not stated

Analysis: Prince Philip retires at age 95. There’s not much to go on for today’s front page. The only additional text given by the Daily Mail is that they have “unrivalled coverage” of this news. There is however, one interesting point here. While the headline refers to the Prince as “sir”, below this we see him only referred to as “Philip”. Possibly the paper takes on a much more personal approach to the Prince’s retirement from public duties, though this is all speculation. So what does this front page tell us about the views of the Daily Mail? Simply that they are royalists. The true extent to which their coverage is “unrivalled” is subjective, and very little news is actually included on this front page.


The Timesthe_times.05.05.17.jpg

Topic of article: Politics

Headline: Duke retires rather than grow frail in public

Author(s): Valentine Low (Journalist)

Analysis: Prince Philip is retiring from royal duties this summer amid growing health concerns and frailty. The Times here claims to have some added information on this royal retirement, notably that the main reason why the Prince is stepping down is to prevent his “growing frailty being exposed in public”. Like the Sun, the Times lists his achievements, notably attending more than 22,000 “engagements” since 1952. It is impressive, though it remains unclear what an “engagement” is exactly. The paper turns this (possibly mundane) story into a piece of juicy gossip, giving what might seem like quite personal and hard to come by information, such as the claim that the Prince has recently been feeling tired, and his fears of being “exposed”, that the Times has either “learnt” or “understands”. It all sounds very mysterious the way this information has been presented, with no explanation of how the paper has come to these conclusions, or any references to who their sources may be. So while the Sun and the Daily Mail take much more light and celebratory stances on the long career of Prince Philip, the Times is much more sombre, painting a picture of a frail, tired, and old man who has made a very tough decision.


Front page images from: Kiokso (

Reviewed by: Anjali Menezes



Wednesday 3rd May, 2017

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

The SunSun

Topic of article: Business

Headline: Quids on the skids

Author(s): Rohdri Phillips (Business Editor)

Analysis: Inform readers about the faults and breaks in the new pound coins in circulation. The Sun uses its business editor to tell everyone that the new pound coin is flawed and reported to break with alarming frequency. Why this needs a business editor is beyond me but the paper does revel in the government’s failings, despite a long standing support of everything the Conservatives do, although the Royal Mint is perhaps a bit more a-political and so fair game. The subject of the article is aimed at the average reader who doesn’t want to read about the politics being reported around the rest of the media. It’s perfect stuff to read about, laugh and move on with one’s life.

The GuardianGuardian

Topic of article: Politics, EU

Headline: I’ll be bloody difficult in EU talks, says PM

Author(s): Anushka Asthana (Joint Political Editor), Jennifer Rankin (Brussels Correspondent)

Analysis: Report on Theresa May’s reaction to the leaked transcripts of her lunch with the European Commission President Juncker and the on-going disagreements about upcoming negotiations surrounding Britain’s exit from the EU. The Guardian features a headline which not-so-subtly implies that Mrs. May is a difficult woman and will make the upcoming EU negotiations harder than they could be. The Guardian is a strong supporter of the Remain campaign and Labour, so uses this story as a vehicle for presenting the disarray that exists with the Conservatives’ plans for Britain leaving the EU, their current relationship with the EU ministers and leaders and the failures of May’s leadership. The article details criticism of May from numerous fronts, in the EU and from the liberal democrats, and uses strong words such as ‘disastrous’, ‘attack’ and ‘blood difficult’ to create the image of a process going up in flames. The article also features an unnamed source reporting from the government’s side and offering their side of the story. This helps in balancing the reporting but also ends up effectively juxtaposing the viewpoints and stance of the EU leaders with that of May and her cabinet, showing the numerous dissimilarities between them. It is not meant to encourage us. Alongside the article the Guardian has also included a string of photos aimed at embarrassing May, showing her eating chips in an odd way while evoking the scandal from the previous general election of Miliband eating a bacon sandwich. Not quite as effective without a plea for everyone to ‘keep this man out’ but certainly an attempt by the paper to harness some of those emotions.

The Daily MailMail

Topic of article: Health

Headline: IVF clinics peddling false hope over egg freezing

Author(s): Katherine Faulk (Executive Features Editor), Paul Bentley (Daily Mail Investigations Editor), Sara Smyth (Daily Mail Investigations Unit)

Analysis: Inform the readers about a recent investigation by the Mail that showed an IVF clinic had over-exaggerated the fertility success rate of freezing ovarian eggs. The Mail has gathered this story through exclusive, undercover investigation and they make sure that every reader knows this by branding their reporters part of an ‘investigations unit’ – this shows people that this paper not only reports news but makes it, and can be trusted to expose all the terrible crimes that wouldn’t otherwise be punished. Before the article is even discussed though it does seem odd that their undercover reporter faked a fertility need, despite many women waiting months for these appointments. The article continues to say that the reporter was told false information and claims that this represents a wide-spread problem. Yet there is no evidence in this front-page that this was anything more than a single dishonest doctor. The main aim of the article may be to shock and anger readers so that they are aware of the problem and perhaps gather enough public outcry to induce change, but the paper reports that there is already an investigation into the findings. The article does not include any comments from the hospitals regarding the facts and so both sides are not reported effectively.

The TimesTimes

Topic of article: Politics, EU

Headline: You can’t lead Brexit talks, EU tells May

Author(s): Oliver Wright (Policy Editor), Bruno Waterfield (Brussels Reporter)

Analysis: Report on the EU’s stance on negotiations for the upcoming exit talks and May’s comments regarding them. The headline of the article is meant to represent the EU’s new tough line stance in negotiations. Coming after May had reportedly promised to personally supervise and engage in EU talks, the article compares this with the EU’s understanding of the process and shows readers how much disparity there is in the two sides. While May attempts to make the election about who will represent Britain in negotiations, she does not seem to understand the basic regulations surrounding the process, the paper seems to say. Relationships are awkward and strained as May attempts to take the lead and push her agenda while the EU consistently rebuts her comments. This effectively presents a picture of confusion and disarray in the government, all while it puts a strong face on for the British public. And yet the manner in which the EU negotiations are reported are always setting Britain against the EU, an us vs. them mentality that has worked so well in galvanising the public that sometimes you wonder whether instead of horrifying people with ineptitude these articles in fact only serve to make the EU seem even more autocratic?

Front page images from:

Reviewed by: Sam Hewitt