Comparing - The Times is a broadsheet paper, that is to say a larger paper of about 'A2' size, and The Mirror is a tabloid, a smaller 'A3' size paper.

Both contain an expletive, but in very different circumstances. The Times' 'Bloody' is literal in the sense that blood was shed, but explicit in that the echoes are awful. However the Mirror only has 'f***ing' in its title to stun and to provoke the reader into looking at the article in greater detail. Additionally, The Times uses 'echoes of Pearl Harbor', a reference to a parallel in history where the Americans were also attacked whilst off-guard, indicating the readership is expected to be sophisticated enough to acknowledge this relationship, while The Mirror would not include such an allusion.

In one respect, the two articles are almost the same - the picture they use next to the pieces. Both are the horrific images that shock, scare and have a deep effect on those who see them, but the captions underneath prove to be very different once more. As in its article, The Mirror uses very emotive language such as 'tragedy' and 'plunge', and tries to influence reader's thoughts, while The Times caption is very informative and gives background information to explain the picture in greater detail.

The Times briefly describes the photograph, 'A worker falling from one of the towers after the terrorist attacks yesterday,' before explaining its significance and giving some background information, 'people were seen leaping form windows minutes before the towers collapsed.' But The Mirror just gives a graphic description using emotive language such as 'plunge' and 'certain death' to have an effect on those who see the image.

When we look at the structure of the pieces, we see many major differences between tabloids and broadsheets. One obvious difference is the layout of the articles. The Mirror uses short columns and lots of paragraphs so as not to intimidate the reader who may be daunted by a long piece, however The Times has long columns to include as much as possible, w from coursework.info hich its more educated readership would not have a problem with. When we look at the actual pieces, there are also many glaring differences between the two. The Times uses much information throughout, for example telling the reader of the mobilisation of anti-terrorist units being deployed in various areas, and slowly builds up towards a painful scene at the end of destruction and pain, whereas The Mirror is very similar throughout, constantly quoting people who say roughly the same thing from the beginning of the piece to the end. For instance, at least three people tell of the panic or screaming of the crowd. Furthermore, The Times uses long, complex sentences, like, 'An hour later, with countless people still trapped inside and rescue workers surrounding the buildings first one tower collapsed and then, half an hour later, the other disintegrated into rubble.' This once again indicates a reasonable level of intelligence expected from the readership. The Mirror however uses short sharp sentences that are easy to read and are somewhat basic, such as, 'the top ten floors were virtually wiped out on impact.'

Another major contrast is the quotations. In both papers quite a few people are quoted, but different sorts of individuals are given power within the articles. In The Times, there are reports from eyewitnesses who give their accounts of what happened so the reader gets a fair picture of the events, but it also quotes leading states people who have power and whose opinion is valued and is of interest to the public. On top of that, experts in various fields that relate to the tragedy such as terrorism experts so the reader gets a rich source of background information so they can not only be as well informed as possible, but to also be able to form a fair and well judged opinion. The Mirror on the other hand has very limited quotations. The only people it interviews are eye-witnesses, those who were there at the time of the attacks. They speak to ordinary New Yorkers: fire-fighters, workers, who give their accounts. They possibly appeal to the readership of The Mirror, who are able to relate to those persons and not people quoted in The Times such as George W. Bush and The Queen, once again showing a gap between the two readerships.

When you look at the details in the two papers, another difference becomes clear. The Times gives broad details of not only the attacks on New York, but also the one on Washington and the crash in Pittsburgh, and also tries to start to explain or at least give suggestions to the questions everyone was asking: who? How? Why? Yet The Mirror is only interested in describing the catastrophe and only gives the reader a very thin perspective on what was happening, leaving many questions unanswered.

A final difference is the emotive language used in the Mirror and the sophisticated language used in The Times. In the tabloid, words such as 'engulfed' and 'clamoured' are used, trying to evoke the feelings in the readers that the paper wants you to have, and not giving a neutral view, which allows the reader to decide on what their opinion is. The Times, however, uses sophisticated language like 'vulnerability' and 'solidarity' to give a clear view of what is going on and to allow the reader to form their own attitudes to the events.

Having looked at both articles in detail, I prefer The Times' informative and descriptive piece rather than The Mirror's narrow-minded, influential article. When you read The Times' item you get a clear sense of what is going on, you hear from many sources, each with a great deal of significance, and you are able to form a calculated opinion from it. The Mirror's, though, is short, only covers a very limited spectrum, tries to influence your opinion, and is not at all thought provoking. Having said this, if you are looking for an easy-going piece of reading with which you can get a reasonable understanding of the situation, The Mirror will perfectly fulfil your need.