LO2: Understand the content and construction of News articles.
Theresa May to miss Eu's 60th anniversary summit, sources say
Article link:
theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/14/theresa-may-set-to-miss-eus-60th-anniversary-summit-sources-say?cmp=wp-plugin
This article is about the British prime minister Theresa May deciding that there is no reason for her or any other British Representative to attend the 60th anniversary celebrations of the European Union in Rome as that the country is due to announce its intention to leave after a referendum was held n the 26th of June 2016 in which the majority of voters decided to leave the Union.
The propose of this article seems to me to be to persuade the reader that the government is in the wrong for not wanting the prime minister to attend the gathering. This interpretation is supported by The Guardian being quoted as "Centre Left" By RatonalWiki.com. This position would mean that they would be in favour of the European unions political beliefs and would like to see them promoted to the general population to the detriment of those of the British Conservative (right wing) government.
As well as this the article states quote: "The British Government sees no point in being involved in planning the future of the Eu." This is a very interesting sentence to me as that it stands out dramatically against the rest of the article which is written with a teacher to pupal mode of address through the use of the term "No Point" which is quite informal. This supports my opinion of the article being written to persuade as that the use of this informal phrase makes the government sound arrogant and hostile.
Also along these lines would be the part of the story where The Guardian very briefly states that "The British prime minister has also been warned to tread carefully on the timing of Britain’s EU exit process." This is actually quite significant to the story itself as that the prime ministers knowledge on the state of affairs regarding the relationship between Great Britain and the European Union is being called into question. This also puts the legitimacy of the EU Referendum under treat and the almost flippant way that this detail is put by the provider clearly displays a left wing bias.
This article is clearly written in a very formal way in order to convey the seriousness of the issue being presented to the reader.
This can be seen in terms such as the quote i have used below:
"The British prime minister has also been warned to tread carefully on the timing of Britain’s EU exit process. The Article uses many techniques in an effort to inform the public of the roles of the Eu.
firstly repetition of the term "No Point" which is very dismissive towards the reasoning of May not to attend the meeting as that the real reason is likely much more complex.
and secondly there is a lot of emotive language used such as the Eu Not wanting to dampen the spirit of celebration.
the article begins with an introductory paragraph that aims to give the reader a shortened version of the story:
Theresa May is expected to miss the EU’s 60th anniversary summit in March because the British government sees no point in being involved in planning the future of the EU.
This paragraph makes certain that the reader understands the key point of the story and can therefore decide if they want to read on. at this point we know why there is a meeting, Prime Minister May will not attend the meeting and they use the term "No Point to make the government sound dismissive. This has been done to appeal to people who have an interest in politics as that they understand the implication of Britain not attending EU meetings and will therefore read more.
The British prime minister was invited to join the celebrations on 25 March with 27 other EU leaders but decided not to take part, a senior EU diplomat told the Guardian. “The door was open, but the response was, ‘We don’t think it is appropriate for us,’” the diplomat said, summarising the UK response
This paragraph gives the reader more of the detail of the story such as the option of a "EU Diplomat" as we as the date of the gathering which was absent from the earlyer stages of the text. I feel that the writer has done this in order to make the reader consume more of the article in order to receive a higher degree of accuracy.
"The British prime minister has also been warned to tread carefully on the timing of Britain’s EU exit process."
This sentence is used as a statement which launches the second half of this story that follows the rest of Britain's Leaving negotiations. This sentence
"A politician from a founding EU member state told the Guardian recently that May should trigger article 50 at least a week before the Rome celebrations, as anything closer would appear “unfriendly”."
This scenence serves to introduce the politition and make their opinion of Briains devolution clear throuh the use of a quote. as well as this most of the vocabulary is in a ellaborate codeto better targetthe politicly aware audiance. I however feel that the quote is too short to be within context as that it is just the single word "Unfrendly" that the writer has cosen to use.
The article has ensured to use the opinions of Primary definers such as their EU diplomat who the Journalist will have conducted an interview with in order to increase the accuracy of the article as well as its integrity in the eyes of their educated target audience. The reason that the Guardian has chosen to define their interviewee as "A politician from a founding EU member state" is likely to protect the human interest of the people involved as well as upholding the basic journalistic ethic of "Humanity" (that meaning that a journalist should not be responsible for any harm to any person, that being formally or physically.) as that putting an opinion into the public space for a position of a high profile as this person will be could cause serious ramifications. Protecting this individuals identity will allow them to maintain their political platform and allow the publication to put the opinion into the public view.
Here’s How The White House Is Justifying The New Refugee And Immigration Ban
Article Link:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/talalansari/heres-how-the-white-house-is-justifying-the-new-refugee-and?utm_term=.hew2dAJZE#.nuA6pKWgR
This article was featured on the home screen of Buzzfeed.com on the 7th of March 2017. Buzzfeed is a well known Left wing, citizen Journalism site that has gained notoriety for their coverage of the American Presidential Election in 2016 and its aftermath in 2017. This article is no exception to the norm when coming from Buzzfeed as that it follows many of the usual conventions that left wing citizen journalism sites like BuzzFeed and The Huffington Post (To a lesser extent) follow.
In my opinion this article aims to inform the reader of the situation developing in the white house and its target audience mainly consists of those in their teens and early twenties. I think this because the article very effectively documents the nature of this new travel ban in a peer to peer mode of address which will appeal to this younger target audience. This mode of address can be clearly seen in the way Buzzfeed Journalist Talal Ansari has written this extract. "The Trump administration partly justified its new order suspending immigration from six Muslim-majority countries and the refugee program by citing two FBI sting operations and a vague statistic from the Department of Justice". I think this because the writer does not include this statement half way through but instead opens with it. The lack of an effective introduction makes the article substantially more informal as that it does not give the reader an opener into the story but instead talks about it as if they were having (an admittedly one sided) conversation with a friend Eg. Peer to Peer. This informal address (as well as the relatively restricted coding) will reach the audience well as that people of this younger age are less likely to engage with information being dictated to them in the authoritarian method of Teacher to Pupal or Parent to Child modes of address.
The tone of this article , I would argue, is sceptical towards President Trump's claims that the travel ban is justified due to terrorism coming from the nations he has excepted. As well as this i feel that the writer is romanticising (almost to the point of nostalgia) the presidency of Barrack Obama in statements like
"Banning immigration from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan for 90 days and suspending the refugee program for 120 days, Trump said, will protect the nation from allowing terrorists in. It takes effect March 16." This is (in my opinion) quite a deceptive way of writing this statement because while it is Mr Trump who is enforcing the ban now Buzzfeed has failed to mention anywhere in the article that the countries listed in the ban actually were devised by Obama himself (is i would argue is evidence of their left wing bias as that they try and portray Trump as a racist for enforcing the ban.) The Left wing bias of this article can also be seen in this extract:
"The first threat recounts the year-long federal government sting surrounding a 19-year-old Somali-American college student who eventually believed an undercover FBI agent to be an “al-Qaeda spotter.” After nearly six months, the teen, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, believed he was planting a bomb at a holiday tree-lighting ceremony in Portland in 2010. Prosecutors said Mohamud “believed he was going to maim and kill thousands by detonating a bomb.” Mohamud’s defence lawyers argued he was an impressionable young man who had not been planning an attack until approached and entrapped by two undercover FBI agents. He was sentenced to 30 years in federal prison in 2014."
This segment is a clear use of anecdotal evidence in an attempt to gain sympathy from the reader when read. I say this because while the sting on a 19 year old was clearly unacceptable there is no statistic used here by Buzz feed to back up their claims and therefore no proof that it is not a simple isolated incident.
The article follows quite a simple pattern in terms of its paragraphing. This is , I think, due to the fact that this article (and the platform who has shared it) has the intention of becoming "viral" meaning that it will be shared around social media where the young target audience will find it.
The first paragraph serves to launch straight into the developments in the story that it is about. It does this instead of giving an introduction as that the piece is building on a story that has been developing for a long while at the point of this article being released. It therefore makes more since to make the article easily digestible and straight to the point as that it is targeted at a young audience who are unlikely to spend a long time on the article.
The rest of the paragraphs slowly give more information to the reader as the article progresses. This allows the journalist to give their insight as the story continues.
The headline of the article also seems to fit in with the informal attitude of the story also reading:
Here’s How The White House Is Justifying The New Refugee And Immigration Ban
I find this headline very interesting as at it appears to rely on the reader knowing in advance about the new Trump travel ban so that they know what the reporter is talking about. It uses the word "Justifying" which immediacy informs the reader that Buzzfeed considers the travel ban as something that must be justified again.
The informal style of the article is introduced to the reader with this. This mean that the article will catch the attention of the average Buzzfeed reader and engage them in the subject matter of the story.
The article uses may short, simple sentences to make its point which is likely due to the fact that it has to appeal to its young target audience. As well as this the article bolsters its pro immigration stance with the below graph.
 |
| This diagram (featured on the article) compairs the companies that were banned by the US to others in the region and America itself. |
The story that this article attempts to communicate is that Donald Trump (The 45th President Of The United States Of America) has reinstated his temporary travel ban on 7 Muslim majority countries o the grounds of them being terrorist threats to the people of his nations. he has done this by sighing an executive order which is essentially a decree that must be obeyed b the American government (or "Congress") must follow. The order takes effect on the 16th of March and following that date nobody from Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya,Iraq or Iran will be able to enter the United states. The controversy arises fro he fact that there as only been one terror suspect from any of these countries since 9/11 while Saudi Arabia has had 15 and is not included in the ban.
The article featured on Buzzfeed is mainly comprised of an interview with Michal German (a former FBI Agent) who ,on further research, has also conducted reserch with The American Civil Liberties Union and Has written a book titled "Thinking like a terrorist
Insights of a Former FBI Undercover Agent ." This shows that buzzfeed has been careful to have a guest who is knowlageable on the subject matter giving them more crediblity. This means that Buzz feed is making clear use of a primary definer to add to the story's accuracy.
The article aims to bring attention to the importance of scepticism when claims are made by prominent political figures. It does this by showing the clear hypocrisy of the Trump administrations claims that terrorism comes from the countries that the new president has chosen to ban travellers from as that the majority of terrorists come from the US.I am surprised by the amount of scathing language used towards the government however and feel that ideology may be hindering the publication from giving the most honest view of the story they could. This goes against the news ethic of independence as that a journalist should have impartiality in stories like these.
Why I exposed the drug 'zombies' of Wrexham bus station
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/exposed-drug-zombies-wrexham-bus-station/ - Article link.
Published on the 8th of march 2017 this article discusses bus driver Gavin Rodda's exposé of the so called "Zombies" of Wrexham bus station in northern Wales. Going into more detail on the incidents he has been trough the driver explains that the sight of people "reduced to a comatose state" was not the only factor that led to his dramatic social media presence. It was, in fact the used syringes he found littered around the bus station toilets that made him "Reach breaking point" and begin posting the images.
The reason this is an article being taken seriously by a publication such as The Telegraph is because the nation is currently in the midst of a drug crisis with no large demographic of people being unaffected. It is the sensationalism of this piece that made it a worthwhile one to publish as that it is often hoped by large publications such as The Telegraph that articles with the purpose of exposing and entertaining will go "viral" and as such be spread around the Internet on a large scale causing many people to see it and therefore making the company gain money due to the advertisements that are placed on it.
The article's tone of address is that of a parent to child as that while it speaks down to the reader giving the information in a orderly and easy to address manner it often uses quite humorous language such as the opening statement:
"Over the past two years, bus driver Gavin Rodda has watched helplessly as “zombies” have slowly taken over his place of work."
This is ,of course, not a factual point due to zombies being in quotation marks but the fact that the article didn't simply start with the next sentence or modify this one shows that the telegraph is attempting to put a humorous spin on the facts of the matter. This means that the article is written in a manner that makes the drug addicts who are the main focus of the story into objects of ridicule, not trying to solve the problem or even address it in a serious manner. This is likely due to the fact that The Telegraph has a right wing/ conservative bias. Therefore they will be talking to an ABC1 market (as that the right generally consists of these people) who will find the story of a working man (Rodda) being obstructed by troublesome drug users who likely don't have jobs to be outrageous and therefore they are more likely to share the story. The humorous angle of this story is also demonstrated in the pictures used which show the use of comical poses being made by the drug users.
The article makes use of both complex
+and compound "He has discovered people slumped over with syringes still sticking out of their ankle; staggering across bus lanes with no idea where they are; and passed out across town centre planters." sentences.
The tone of the article is quite humorous but also quite scathing towards those in charge of Wrexham for not ensuring that heir facilities are not better kept.
The article itself is featured on the Men's lifestyle section of the website which I believe will be due to the fact that it is men who are most likely to have outrage stirred by the contents of the story as that they are the most likely to have this type of job this of course leads to more revenue for the publication as that they are the most likely to share the article to social media.
The paragraphing of the article aims to tell the story to a new comer, giving more information about the events that took place at Wrexham station and why this bus driver did what he did. The first paragraph gives a humorous introduction to the story while the others all give further insight such as what is actually going on in the story, that being the use of drugs by the local people leading the disruption to this bus drivers livelihood.
The article effectively draws attention to the ever growing issue of drug addiction in this country and uses humor to make the issue less daunting to the reader. I think that it is admirable that the writer attempts to draw attention to this issue and think that it is a great example of journalism's power to do good when ethics and values are upheld. The article shows adherence to Truth and accuracy, independence and impartiality.
Smart machines v hackers: How cyber warfare is escalating
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38403426 - article link
Published on the 10th of march 2017 to the business section of the BBC news website this article focuses on the so called "cyber war" and gives the reader different ways from protect themselves from having intimate details stolen by hackers on the web.
As a business article it of course focuses on the ways that businesses are affected by their mentioned "Hole in digital defences" such as the January DDoS attack on Lloyds bank in January of this year.
Unlike all the other articles I have written about up until now this piece of work has no political bias as that it is not a story meant to talk about/ stir outrage about politics. It's purpose is simply to inform readers that there is a serious risk in the modern use of technology and to help to give them ways to protect themselves. The fact that the BBC can write articles such as this one is likely down to the fact that they are a public service broadcast and therefore have no need to generate stories with such a sensationalist flare as that they are funded externally and not through advertisements.
The story is written wit a teacher to student mode of address as that is simply gives the reader the issue and how the people whose job it is to handle the problem's (Nominet) proposed solution. That solution in this case is "Machine learning" which can clear data received due to a DDoS attack far quicker than a human can and therefore solve the issue of cyber attacks of this nature for businesses. Through the large amount of jargon used (DDos, Machine learning), The is no humorous spin on the article meaning that it is unlikely to be in a parent to child form and it is in no way informal therefore ruling out peer to peer. The tone that the article I would say is quite impartial to the issue which is again simply due to its purpose of informing the reader and its lack of bias.
This article attempts to reach its target audience through the use of dramatic writing using metaphors like the previously mentioned "Gaping hole"
The articles paragraphing is employed in such a way that it draws the reader in to make them want to learn more about how smart machines can prevent hacking and therefore read more of the article. The reader gets a quick overview of the themes of the story from the headline and therefore understands the subject of the article before beginning to read it. The first paragraph makes use of the earlier mentioned "Gaping hole" metaphor in order to make the issue understandable to the reader who may not understand what exactly is being discussed simply making it clear that cyber security has to be better.
The third paragraph onwards are all taken from the opinions of Ian Glover (a primary definer on the subject) being part of Crest, the UK body that certifies the skills of ethical hackers as well as Peter Woollacott and Simon Mcalla (who are also experts in computer science noted in the article) the use of three different experts serves to make the articles accuracy almost unquestionable.
PACK IT IN!
Furious mum slams school ‘lunch box police’ for banning daughter’s healthy snacks and saying she had ‘too much’
https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2992438/furious-mum-slams-school-lunch-box-police-for-banning-daughters-healthy-snacks-and-saying-she-had-too-much/ - Article link.
The Sun news paper (a right wing publication owned by Murdoch's News Corporation) Posted this article on their official website on the 2nd of march 2017 and It is much like many other articles the sun has become infamous for posting. Sensationalist and extremely factually ambiguous (To the point where a name isn't even given for the main people in the story.
The article states that a child had part of their packed lunch taken in order to promote healthier eating standards when the food that was taken in the first place was a "few slices of avocado" slice. The article sites the website "Mumsnet.com" which parents can use to give advise and discuss issues that arise while raising children.
This is a very interesting article to me simply due to the fat that they are attempting to reach a completely different target audience to all the others which I have seen. I would argue that this piece of work is targeted at women between the ages of 30-55 who would fit into the C2DE demographic as that it is featured on the "Sun Mums" section of the website and uses clear Hyperbole,"The Lunchbox police" colloquial language "livid" and "told off". The article is also written in a peer to peer mode of address which can be seen in statements such as this one "One angry mum commented:
“I find your DD’s (Darling daughters) lunch box extremely varied and healthy. What a good job that she also eats fruit, avocado etc,” while another pointed out: “That sounds insane. That sort of behaviour is more likely to do harm than good, isn’t it?” This is clearly written in an informal manner (Much like someone would speak to a friend.)
The tone of the article is quite scathing towards the teachers who took away the child's food as that the writer of this piece as well as the editor will know that the audience do not want to read anything that they disagree with and therefore took their side in the conflict that arose.
The article is laid out in such a way that it explains the story very quickly so that the reader can quickly gain context and move onto the comments about the story featured below it. for this reason the entire story is told in 8 short paragraphs with the rest of the article just being the conversation that arose on the story.
Overall I believe that this is an article which uses sensationalist aspects to exaggerate relatively small event to a huge outrage so that they can become viral and generate large amounts of revenue from advertisements. I say this because i feel that the article pays very little attention to its accuracy and instead just takes the Mumsnet.com poster at their word when there is no way that they could know if the events oulined even truely happened.
