A Comparison of newspaper articles- four editorials Essay
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website!
Newspapers have long been a mean of communication between the general public and the world. They usually state facts and opinions about an important event that has taken place in the world, which would be of interest. This news can range from political views to showbiz to world affairs. One thing that we do not do when we read a newspaper is to think for one second that what we are reading is that exactly how it happened. Newspapers are used as a medium for propaganda.
Propaganda is used frequently in everyday life to manipulate out thoughts and despite what the majority of us think it does affect our opinions. It’s a proven fact that newspapers are more propaganda than facts as the news are twisted around to support the journalist’s own political views. So in a way all news that we read is not as we interpret it to be because journalists would only write what they feel is right and all of us have different opinions.
There are two main types of newspapers, Broadsheets like “The Guardian” and Tabloids like “The Mirror. ” Tabloids are the most popular type of paper; they are often smaller in size, more colourful and use stimulating images to target a certain age range such as teenagers. They use simple words so they are the most widely read newspapers in the world. On the other hand Broadsheets are generally larger in size, more serious and less colourful. They are mostly concerned with current affairs, political issues and people opinions about the government.
They are targeted for a specific audience, which might be people who are involved in the fields of employment that are mentioned in the newspaper, or it could just be ordinary people. This essay will explore different types of newspapers and their effects on the general public. I will be doing this by comparing four newspaper editorials from “The Sun” “Daily Star” “The Guardian” and “The socialist worker. ” All four editorials report on the same thing, which is a fight between Nigel Benn and Gerald McClellan where at the end McClellan was left on a life support machine.
I will be looking if the editorials are bias and are they for or against Boxing being banned in the UK and how effective their techniques are. In the first editorial by “The Sun” “No one is forced to fight” is a tabloid, the headline is very big and bold as is for the second editorial by ” The Daily Star”, which is also a tabloid, called “They knew the risks. ” It catches the readers attention straight away even at a glance. The first editorial by the Sun has two verbs in its headline.
The word ‘No one’ is a pronoun that indicates/refers to people in general so by saying this the reader will be curious to find out as to what it stands for thus they will be enticed to read the article. The second article is similar to the first in the sense that the pro-noun ‘They’ is quite general, in order to cause the to look at the article in more detail or stimulate interest. The third editorial by “The Guardian” “One pummelling too many” is a broadsheet and already you can spot the difference with the headline. It is not bold or italic it is just normal writing.
The word “Pummelling” is not frequently used by the masses, which would most probably capture a target audience. The fourth headline by “The Socialist worker” “Boxing bosses count the cash” is also a tabloid. Unlike the other articles it gives us a clearer picture of what the article is about because it is the only one that mentions the adverb ‘Boxing’ The Sun, Daily Star, and the socialist worker, context are less detail, they have short simple facts about the fight and so therefore is aimed at a very broad audience.
The first article starts of with a fact but the writer then goes on to express his own views and therefore it is mainly opinions. For example “why should boxing be banned when all those sports continue? ” and words such as brutal” and “cruel” are used to describe the event, which affects the reader’s emotions, making an incident where blood was involved come to their minds. On the other hand The Guardian newspaper provides a lot more detail with static’s. For example ” Britain’s boxing rules have been tightened for over 300 years since the first bare knuckle fight was recorded”.
The Guardian has used longer sentence structure in comparison to the other newspapers, the words are generally long and more than three syllables long for example words such as “neurological” are used, which is quite typical of a broadsheet newspaper as it has so much facts and uses complex vocabulary that it is only served for the needs of intellectual people. All the other newspapers are tabloids so they have used short sentence structure and short words for example is article two the longest word is “endeavour” where as that would probably be the longest in a broadsheet.
The linguistic structure of the sun/daily star and the choice of words are more dramatic and sensation than the Guardian, for example: “The Sun” Ban boxing It’s too dangerous … Can cause serious damage to the brain …. The fear of injury or even death Of course it is brutal and cruel Few of us would dare try it “The Daily Star” The fight was ferocious, brutal, bloody The end was tragic …. Plunge him to purgatory Everyone who watched this fight will never forget it “The socialist worker” is more concerned with human values than with Boxing itself.
It is actually telling us how people have power over others and how they use and exploit them to such an extent that it leaves them paralysed. For example “to them [managers] boxers are little more than dogs” but than it goes on to give the writers own thoughts “but those in the ring are prepared to risk their lives because they see it as their only chance of achieving a better life. ” The first article does not follow a balanced argument and is biased, what it does is it makes the reader think by using retheriotical questions.
For example “how many jockeys are seriously injured falling of horses? ” “How many rugby players are paralysed with broken necks? ” “Why should boxing be banned when all those sports continue? ” it lets you come to your own conclusion but then straight after that it says, “You cannot nanny people, however tragic the consequences of their actions might be. ” Which then makes the reader completely lose track of what he was thinking and accept that what is written is true. This article is against Boxing being banned.
The second article is clearly biased and in favour of boxing. If you take one glance at it you will notice that straight away in bold it says, “they are grown men free to make their own decision. ” This article does not let the reader have any thought it is constantly trying to stimulate the readers mind into believing that to box is not a crime. In its last sentence it seems like the author wants people to be involved in committing acts of violence “don’t let the do-goodders diminish an heroic battle.
” The third article is by the Guardian and is also biased and as you would of expected it to be it has used a lot of static’s and facts to persuade their audience that boxing should be banned. The fourth article appears biased that it inclines towards the winner because it is only the winner that counts the cash. On the other hand one could say that the bosses are yearning for their boxers to win so that they can get the money. This article is more about how the society is run than boxing itself because it says “boxing is a multi-million pound business” but its not the only sport where you can make a million pound.
This author wants the class-dive system changed as he clearly outlines it in his last sentences “The real question is not whether boxing should be banned but whether we can rid of the system which creates it. ” Coming to a conclusion I would say that the best newspaper which is more likely to make people think is “The Socialist Worker” as it would than be a need for one to understand the importance of society and how our we exploit it. After that has been done, than, you could start thinking about different other issues.
My own opinion is that boxing should not be banned even after knowing the tragic consequences. I think that if you were to ban boxing there would a lot of unrest and protests so therefore the best way of preventing that is to allow boxing. If people are sane they will know the consequences of boxing and yet if they still want to continue we cannot stop them they have free will but they were warned. So if you allow boxing this way the decision is theirs (boxers) not anyone else’s and only they can be blamed for their actions.