VIEWPOINTS 3: Our thoughts on the 2017 UK general election

Its been a long election. At BTH we aim to analyse, discuss and explore the aim, agenda, and bias of international, national and local newspapers to as many members of the public as possible. Still, each of our writers bring their own opinions and biases in the work that we do, in our analysis, and how we interpret the news. This invariably affects the work we produce, and so in the name of full transparency, today we give you a glimpse of our opinions and worldviews.

Below we bring you the thoughts of Alice Edwards, one of the co-founders of Between the Headlines.

I have voted both Labour and Green over the years, am a supporter of the concept of a Progressive Alliance on the left. Considering the impact of the media on this general election, there’s one point that cannot go ignored: print press is not where it’s at. Despite acknowledging the media bias against Corbyn with the infamous ‘Don’t chuck Britain in the Cor Bin’ and the London Evening Standard (current editor: George Osbourne) ever-detached from real Londoners and their politics, coming out in blunt support of the Conservatives saying they were “best for our capital.” However, despite this coverage, Corbyn still did unexpectedly well. I feel that the significant growth in youth vote and Corbyn’s success indicates that it’s the freedom provided of online politics – whether it be through memes and Corbyn’s dabbing or it’s use in organising and mobilising a big part of the electorate – was what got people interested.


VIEWPOINTS 2: Our thoughts on the 2017 UK general election

Its been a long election. At BTH we aim to analyse, discuss and explore the aim, agenda, and bias of international, national and local newspapers to as many members of the public as possible. Still, each of our writers bring their own opinions and biases in the work that we do, in our analysis, and how we interpret the news. This invariably affects the work we produce, and so in the name of full transparency, today we give you a glimpse of our opinions and worldviews.

Next up in our exclusive Between the Headlines series is Samuel Hewitt.

I voted Labour yesterday because I believe they offered the hope of a government that put people and compassion first, above private interest and capital. While I was initially sceptical of Jeremy Corbyn’s ability to rise above a media that is inherently rightwing and appeal to a wide range of UK voters, I have always agreed with his policies. And I am pleasantly surprised that his and Labour’s tactics have seemed to worked magnificently, using social media and grassroots campaigns to harness the hope and power of the youth vote, along with those who are disenfranchised with the current political structure.

Labour may not have gained enough seats to form a government but this election was about so much more, and it showed that there really is an appetite for social justice in the UK. The Conservatives tried to run on a platform of individual interest, of fear and concern over ‘the other side’ and although they now form a government they do so in a much weakened position.

As a medical student who will likely move directly into a position of near total job security, adequate pay, and ample opportunities in the private sector, it is not me who will stand to lose the most with a Conservative government. I think its important for people in a similar position to consider what type of society we want to live in moving forward – do we want one where public services and social care are cut because of the long discredited phantom of ‘austerity’, leading to over 30,000 deaths a year because the Tories prefer to give tax cuts to the banks and wealthy businesses? One where, for all their talk of economic proficiency and the failings of the opposition, the national debt has tripled in 7 years and the Tories are now on the brink of forming a coalition government with a party that is anti-abortion and gay rights, are climate sceptics and have direct links with terrorist groups? Or do we want one where people have access to universal health care, access to essential services like carers and a winter fuel allowance? Where we understand that the economy isn’t like our bank account and by cutting spending drastically we actually starve the economy and weaken it? One where we take care of the many, and not just the few? I know which one I prefer.

VIEWPOINTS: Our thoughts on the 2017 UK General election.

Its been a long election. At BTH we aim to analyse, discuss and explore the aim, agenda, and bias of international, national and local newspapers to as many members of the public as possible. Still, each of our writers bring their own opinions and biases in the work that we do, in our analysis, and how we interpret the news. This invariably affects the work we produce, and so in the name of full transparency, today we give you a glimpse of our opinions and worldviews.

To start it all off is Anjali Menezes, a non-UK, non-EU national, studying in the UK for the past 5 years on a student visa.

As a Canadian citizen, and an international student in the UK on a student visa, I have an outsider’s view on the UK general election. Did I vote? No. Could I have voted? Yes.

As a common wealth citizen living in the UK I could have voted in this election, and I am not entirely proud that I did not. Voting is an incredible privilege that I gave up last night. I voted in the 2015 UK general election, and just a few months later I also voted in the Canadian 2015 general election. To be honest, I felt a bit like a fraud. UK citizens do not have the right to vote in Canadian elections, so the right of common wealth citizens to vote in the UK is not reciprocated. I voted with my own ideals in the UK election, but I honestly do not have a vested interest in the UK. I am Canadian and hope to return to my home country very soon.

I have a significant bias and conflict of interest here. International tuition fees are immense, and my true hope is that the pound will fall. In both Canada and the UK, my political views are strongly anti-conservative, so even though I did not vote,  I am upset that the Labour Party did not win last night. However, I am pleased that there was no Conservative majority.

Friday 9th June 2017

Friday 9th June 2017

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

Today we bring you some of the UK’s headlines following the 2017 general election. Stay tuned later for our writers’ views on last night. As of this morning, the final results were not confirmed.


The Sunsun.9 June.jpg

Topic of article: UK Politics

Headline: MAYHEM

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

Analysis: The Sun covers the predictions from the exit polls, which suggest the result of a hung parliament with the conservatives having 314 seats, Labour with 266, Scottish National Party with 34, and Lib Dems with 14. There is very little text on this front page, besides a statement of results from the exit polls. However, on a closer examination of what was included on this front page, we can see suggestions of the editor’s overall opinion on last night’s results. One line of the author’s impressions makes the front page: “[May’s election] ended in disaster”, suggesting that the writer had hoped for a Conservative majority in parliament. Additionally, the Sun brings in an interesting set of images to their front page, with the leaders of five of the political parties, all smiling except for Jeremy Corbyn, depicted with a scowl (possibly mid-argument). So why has this particular image of the Labour party’s leader been chosen? Is the Sun trying to highlight him in some unflattering way? Is the paper trying to assume the leaders’ emotional responses to the election results in their depictions on the front page? Maybe. On the other hand, Labour has gained 34 seats in this election, and UKIP has lost their only seat, so why is Paul Nuttall grinning on the front page?


The Guardianguardian.9 June.jpg

Topic of article:  UK Politics

Headline: Exit poll shock for May

Author(s): Anusha Asthana (Political Editor); Rowena Mason (Deputy Political Editor)

Analysis: The article discusses the predictions of a 10pm exit poll, suggesting the UK was headed for a hung parliament. The authors go on the try a draw of picture of the atmospheres in the Conservative and Labour party headquarters the night of the election. The authors are still cautious however, pointing to the fact that the 2015 exit polls suggested a hung parliament, while that election resulted in a Conservative majority. The article appears to paint the Labour party in a favourable light, while being quite critical of the Conservatives. Jeremy Corbyn’s “buoyant” campaign was described as a “gruelling seven week tour”, as the authors try and paint a picture of a very hard working and positive leader. Meanwhile, Theresa May is described with considerably less enthusiasm as “feeling good”. The choice of imagery on this front page is considerably different, with Jeremy Corbyn as the only party leader to make the editing cut. He’s shown smiling with two voters. A very different expression on his face than on this morning’s Sun.

Daily Maildaily_mail.9 June

Topic of article: UK Politics


Author(s): Jason Groves (Political Editor)

Analysis: This article focuses on the results of the exit polls, suggesting a hung parliament. Jason Groves (article author) blasts Theresa May as the paper appears incredibly disappointed by the Conservative results. The piece picks very specific quotes to paint the Conservative leader in a now unfavourable light, as “one minister” (who remains unnamed) calling her campaign “the worst in living memory”, as her plans “backfired disastrously”. Still, the paper remains critical of all the British political parties, with no leader painted in a favourable light. Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn is called “profoundly dangerous”, while everyone else is simply lumped together as “a rag bag of other parties”. Though this remains a very opinionated piece, the Daily Mail appears to think every political party in the country is equally horrible.


The Timesthe_times.9 June.jpg

Topic of article: UK Politics

Headline: May’s big gamble fails

Author(s): Francis Elliott (Political Editor); Sam Coates (Deputy Political Editor)

Analysis: The Times covers the results of the exit polls along with how this has affected the value of the pound against the US dollar. The authors’ views on the exit poll results echo the opinions of other UK papers in seeing this as a major loss for Theresa May’s Conservative Party. Strong words are used to depict the prospect of a hung parliament as a “humiliating prospect” as the snap election “spectacularly backfired”. Additionally, the opinion of the former chancellor adds to May’s defeat, as George Osborne calls for her to resign if the “catastrophic” predictions of the exit polls prove accurate. Last night’s results are put into context with Brexit negotiations and the falling value of the pound. While still acknowledging the fact that exit polls did not accurately predict the results of the 2015 UK general election, the authors seem confident in its results, describing its predictions of the 2010 and 2005 elections as “spot on”. In this article, the only other political party mentioned on the front page is Labour, with one quote from the shadow foreign secretary stating that if the party was called to provide the next government, they would do so “in a unified way”.


Front page images from: Kiokso (

Reviewed by: Anjali Menezes

Monday 5th June 2017

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

The Sunsun.750

Topic of article: Crime

Headline: Jihadi killer in an Arsenal shirt

Author(s): Tom Wells (Chief Reporter), Mike Sullivan (News Reporter)

Analysis: The Sun uses the same image as the Daily Mail and The Times but uses text on its front page to describe background information about “Abz” the “ringleader” of the three suspects. The information provided about the individual emphasises that he was just like any other Londoner, working for Transport for London and KFC and being an Arsenal supporter, but then became “radicalised over the past year” leading up to the attack, describing him as a “HOME-grown jihadi.” The article is extremely emotive, using language such as “slaughtered” and “murderous spree” with the tag-line under The Sun banner of “we are not afraid” oddly juxtaposing the sense of fear evoked throughout the article.  It isn’t clear why the article has focussed in on one of the individuals – perhaps he was the only one they could find any information about or just the closest in this photograph – or where this information about him came from.


The Guardianguardian.750

Topic of article:  Crime

Headline: Seven dead, 21 critically hurt: May says ‘enough is enough’

Author(s):  Robert Booth (News Reporter), Vikram Dodd (Senior Reporter), Lisa O’Carroll (Brexit Correspondent), Matthew Taylor (Environment Correspondent)

Analysis: In the aftermath of the London Bridge, The Guardian provides some details of the current situation and what the police are doing regarding gaining more information on the three men involved. By focussing on what is being done by the police rather than a detailed description of the events on Saturday night, the article has a generally less emotive and more calming tone than the other articles. Moreover, this sense that the police are taking control of the situation is highlighted in the article by describing a number of the arrests in relation to the attacks, the main person being quoted being counter-terrorism chief Mark Rowley and the justification for the shoot-to-kill action by the police. However, this is somewhat undermined by the source, Erisa Gasparri, claiming she had reported one of the suspected attackers to the police two years previously which is suggesting that counter-terrorism measures aren’t as effective as they could be.

Daily Maildaily_mail.750

Topic of article: Crime

Headline: Bloody day all of Britain said: Enough is enough

Author(s): None (Only image on the front page)

Analysis: Using the same photograph as The Times and The Sun, the Mail uses red circles to highlight the bodies and a smaller image of two of the suspected attackers described as “swaggering jihadis during the killing spree” inset. By using Theresa May’s quote of “enough is enough” as if “all of Britain” feel this way creates this sense of a turning point in Britain’s policy on terror, that this attack must somehow push the government to become in some way more effective against terrorist organisations after this “3rd attack in 10 weeks.” Though there is not much text on the page both the word “fanatics” and “jihadis” are used on the front page, possibly intended to stir up Islamophobia in Britain by not providing any further explanation of the terms used or the backgrounds of the individuals.  The link with May’s quote begs the question of what the political fallout will be of this attack, within a week of the general election, and whether any specifics relating to counter-terrorism will be described by politicians over the next three days.


The TimesTIMES

Topic of article: Crime

Headline: Massacre in the market  

Author(s): None (Only image on front page)

Analysis: Similar to their coverage of the Westminster attack, The Times chooses to use an image of the three suspects lying on the ground after being shot with a small caption reading “three terrorists lie dead after being shot by police in Borough Market, London. Saturday’s attack was the third in Britain by Islamist extremists in three months.” The image is blurred, communicating the sense of chaos of the scene, with what are presumed to be police officers standing over two of the bodies. The closest man on the floor appears to be wearing something strapped to his torso, which the police had suspected were explosives but were later found to be fake. This image is distinctly different from the other common image used by the press today, which is of a row of armed counter-terrorism police in the capital which instils more of a sense of police control and authority rather than this image which evokes a sense of tragedy and panic.


Front page images from: BBC The Papers ( , The Guardian may be better read at the Guardian website or Pressreader ( or Kiokso (

Reviewed by: Alice Edwards


Friday 2nd June 2017

Friday 2nd June 2017

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

The Sunsun_June2

Topic of article: Politics

Headline: LEAF IT OUT

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

Analysis: The Sun claims that the budget from Jeremy Corbyn’s (The Labour Party Leader) platform will cost families and extra £3500 a year and “blow a £300billion hole in Britain’s finances’. This far from impartial front page headline from The Sun clearly indicates that they are not voting Labour this election. This opinion piece puts forth a number of accusations: that Corbyn proposes “eye-watering” tax hikes (this front page does not reveal who would be affected by these rising taxes); that if elected, the party hopes to write off a number of student loans; and that this budget is just a form of “election bribe” for Corbyn to secure votes. There are no opinions from any sources presented in this text, other than that of the author. While figures are given to illustrate the large sums of money referred to in the text, this is a very good example of how a simple political platform and budget can be interpreted in many ways. While Corbyn proposes writing off a significant amount of student loans, no information is given as to how much money will be saved by Labour’s proposed Tax Transparency and Enforcement Programme, which aims to close tax loopholes for the rich. Political party manifesto’s can be long and hard to read, but in only presenting a limited amount of information, and the opinions of just one author, a completely different and biased presentation of a select amount of facts, aims to convince the reader to take on the political views of the Sun. The full Labour Manifesto for the UK 2017 General Election can be found here:


The Guardianguardian_June2

Topic of article:  US Politics; environment

Headline: Anger at US as Trump rejects climate accord

Author(s): Oliver Milman (Environment reporter); Damian Carrington (Environment editor)

Analysis: Donald Trump has announced that the US will be withdrawing from the historic Paris Climate Agreement, signed in 2015, a significant move as the US is the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. The article contains opinions from numerous sources, and differing views, from Donald Trump himself, to former US president Barack Obama (who signed the agreement in 2015), as well as arguments from an unnamed Whitehouse document claiming the deal had been “signed out of desperation”, and analyses by non-for=profit organisations. While certain Trump supporters claim that climate change is a myth, this issues is not controversial but a proven fact. Almost 200 countries signed the Paris agreement to help tackle greenhouse gas emissions, after more than two decades of failed efforts to come to a consensus. Essentially, after just a few months in office, president Trump has erased more than 20 years of work. While he claims to be acting in the best interests of his “beautiful country”, his denial of climate change jeopardises not just the future of the citizens of the US, but the future generations of the world. Trump claims to be acting in the best interests of the US economy, helping those working in the coal industry for example. He adds in a great line that he was “elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris”. Poetic? For Trump, yes. If you’re looking for something to do this evening, I suggest following this story- as the Mayor of Pittsburgh himself blasts Trump for his actions. This may represent a very sad day for environmental activists and citizens of the world alike. A very worthy front page headline.

The Timesthe_times_750

Topic of article: Politics

Headline: We will use SNP to give us power, says Labour

Author(s):  Francis Elliott (Political Editor); Sam Coates (Deputy Political Editor)

Analysis: This article focusses on an in-depth look at what Jeremy Corbyn plans to do in the event of a minority government, as the shadow foreign secretary reveals that that party will look to the Scottish National Party (SNP) MPs for support. So what’s the fuss about a minority government. Essentially if the party that wins the election does not have the majority of seats in parliament, this makes it very hard to pass any bills. All of the other members of parliament (MPs), who would represent other political parties, would, as a group, have more votes than the party in power. This results in policies that need to pass with the majority of votes would stagnate in a so called “hung parliament”. The labour party here proposes that they would focus on the support and votes from SNP MPs to help pass Labour bills if this is the case. While the Conservatives have leapt on these remarks saying that Jeremy Corbyn would “invite the other parties to prop him up as prime minister”, what is not presented on this front page story is the view that this shows a great sign that Corbyn is aiming to team work in the event of a minority government. This article presents a biased view with some facts of what Labour might be planning on doing, with criticisms and opinions from the Tories. What will the Conservative party do in the event of a minority government? What is evident in this article is the growing fear of Conservative Party supporters over the rising support for the Labour Party.


Daily Maildaily_mail_75

Topic of article: Politics


Author(s): Daniel Martin (Policy Editor)

Analysis: A proposed inheritance tax change by the Labour Party for the UK general election would reduce the inheritance tax threshold from £850,000 to £650,000. While Daniel Martin does a great job here of explaining what all of this means, this article is still a biased piece. While half of the front page text is devoted to the details of the tax, the rest is coverage of the Conservative platform and the party’s own beliefs and critiques of the tax. It is ironic that Teresa May’s (the Conservative Party leader and current prime minister) platform claimed to be focussing on “mainstream Britain” in reality, their views on increasing the threshold for inheritance tax to £1million will only seek to help wealthy, upper-middle class families, as few “mainstream” folks could expect such a generous inheritance. While an in depth explanation of the ins and outs of the proposed Labour inheritance tax occurs, the author then points to the “better” Conservative plan to “charge some people more for social care”. By analysing the Labour budget while only presenting vague claims by the Conservative party, the paper attempts to convince the reader to vote Conservative. Just how many British are included in this “some people” claim? We may never know.


Front page images from: Kiokso (

Reviewed by: Anjali Menezes

Tuesday 23rd May 2017

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

The Sun Screen Shot 2017-05-23 at 17.35.35.png

Topic of article: Politics

Headline: Blood on his hands

Author(s): Tom Newton Dunn

Analysis: The Sun is informing its readers about an ‘Ex-IRA killer’ who claims that Jeremy Corbyn has blood on his hands. The Sun claims, from its source Sean O’Callaghan, that the support of Corbyn and John McDonnell encouraged the IRA to “prolong the violence”. It appears that this accusation is unsubstantiated and The Sun shows no evidence to prove or to support these claims. The reader is unaware of the credibility of this “Ex-IRA killer”. These claims reproduced by The Sun seem to serve an agenda and misleads the public. The smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn continues and it is a shame (but not surprising) to see The Sun, the most sold newspaper in Britain, producing front page news stories like this without any real substantial evidence clarifying these claims.

The GuardianScreen Shot 2017-05-23 at 17.20.37.png

Topic of article:  Politics

Headline: Theresa May faces ‘chaos and confusion’ claims after social care U-turn

Author(s): Anushka Asthana and Jessica Elgot

Analysis: The Guardian informs its readers about Theresa May’s U-turn on the Conservatives’ social care policy in their manifesto. The social care policy received a lot of backlash from Labour, the Liberal Democrats and even some Tory MPs due to it being unfair on those suffering from chronic illnesses which is why it has been dubbed the “dementia tax”. This move by the Prime Minister is unprecedented and the media are accusing her of “chaos, confusion and indecision” as no political leader from a major party in the U.K. has U-turned on a policy so soon after a party’s manifesto has been released.  It appears that Theresa May is forming a reputation on U-turning on decisions and promises that she makes, from being a Remainer to becoming a hard Brexiter, U-turning on National Insurance and U-turning on calling a snap election. The author explains that Theresa May keeps hitting out at Jeremy Corbyn and one can only infer that it is because she does not want appear weak and wobbly and is deflecting.

Daily MailScreen Shot 2017-05-23 at 17.21.52

Topic of article: Social Media

Headline: Facebook lets teens see porn

Author(s): Katherine Rushton (Media and Technology Editor)

Analysis: The Daily Mail is informing its readers about an investigation that they carried which reveals that teenagers are able to see pornography, gambling websites and dangerous diet plans on Facebook. The Daily Mail set up three fake accounts with different personalities and characteristics to see what they would be exposed to on Facebook. This has lead to the Daily Mail asking questions about Facebook’s failure to protect young children. Neither does the author elaborate on why this is happening and how it can be solved, nor does it show how widespread this is on social media as it has only created 3 fake account. The article quotes Chi Onwurah, the former Labour shadow culture minister, and Facebook.


Monday 22nd May 2017

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

The Sunsun.750

Topic of article: Entertainment

Headline: I walked plank over Jolly Roger with Orlando

Author(s): Rachel Dale (News Reporter)

Analysis: The Sun reports the story of a waitress, Viviana Ross, being sacked after allegedly having sex with actor Orlando Bloom at her place of work, the Chiltern Firehouse Hotel. The newspaper inevitably reports this as if Ross made a bad decision to “bed film hunk” after her shift had ended and this was found out by “a manager” who found her in Bloom’s bed. The article doesn’t detail whether there were grounds for unfair dismissal or whether the dismissal would have been based on her contract. There initially doesn’t appear to be much more to the article other than salacious gossip though it could be said to perpetuate the image of young woman desperate to be associated with the rich famous male with a “five star suite”, a story that rarely runs the other way around.


The Guardianguardian.750

Topic of article:  Science & Technology

Headline: Revealed: Facebook’s secret rules on sex, violence, hate speech and terror

Author(s):  Nick Hopkins (Head of Investigations)

Analysis: In their series ‘The Facebook Files’ the Guardian works to uncover what they frame as ethically questionable policies in place regarding what is allowed and not allowed to be posted on the platform. The tone of the article is that of investigating a huge issue including implying that “critics” exist and that even those within Facebook also “have concerns” which begs the question of how the Guardian obtained these internal files. Moreover, the large print statistics about numbers of users and that it says that they are “under huge political pressure in Europe and the US” implies that this is some sort of day of reckoning for Facebook, that it will need to become more accountable or risk its reputation, though how true this is is hard to tell. Moreover this is not a balanced account, due to its investigative nature, and the paper has cherry-picked the most shocking cases including issues self-harm, violent deaths, animal abuse, sexual activity and abortions. This is one of a question about lines around grey areas, and the Guardian is clearly deciding that Facebook have crossed the line, though doesn’t suggest how this phenomenon should be tackled on this front page.


Daily Maildaily_mail.750

Topic of article: Politics

Headline: Corbyn’s kick in teeth for IRA victims

Author(s): Jack Doyle (Executive Political Editor)

Analysis: The article reports the criticism that Jeremy Corbyn has not directly condemned the IRA which has arisen in recent television interviews. The article is highly critical of Corbyn and the bulk of the article is quotes from Kenny Donaldson of Innocent Victims United who claims Corbyn ignores his organisations requests for a meeting and that he treats “innocent victims and survivors of Provisional IRA terrorism with contempt.” There is no evidence to support or explain Corbyn’s decision or to verify the claims made by Donaldson. As this may be an emotive issue for readers, the purpose is to make Corbyn appear immoral and disrespectful to reduce his political support. Moreover the message of “he claimed Britain for seeking a military solution” and “ ‘siding with Britain’s enemies’” somewhat relates to previous criticisms of him being a pacifist and that he didn’t bow deeply enough on Remembrance day last year.


The Timesthe_times.750

Topic of article: Politics

Headline: Care crisis threatens to scupper May reform

Author(s): Sam Coates (Deputy Political Editor)

Analysis: The Times reports potential flaws in and much criticism of May’s proposed social care reforms announced last week. With the legitimacy of the article supported by the results of Freedom of Information Act requests from to local authorities, the article progressively presents the cast against May’s plans mostly focussing on the lack of feasibility of an increased number of older people at home or in residential care that might face deferred charges after their death. The article also sights “the decision to cut the £300 winter fuel allowance for all but the poorest pensioners and end free school meals” as concerning and uses former Liberal Democrat pension minister’s critical claims to support their argument. Suggestions that those within the Conservative party, including Boris Johnson and head of policy John Godfrey, have also conceded that there are some issues strengthens their opening paragraph that this could be a major problem for the party “amid further signs that Labour is closing the gap.” There is little to support May’s policies or why they have been implemented and even Johnson’s moderately supportive quote is undermined it’s introduction.


Front page images from: BBC The Papers ( , The Guardian may be better read at the Guardian website or Pressreader ( or Kiokso (

Reviewed by: Alice Edwards