ENGA2 - Investigation into the representation of the May 2011 Alternative Vote Referendum in articles from the Telegraph, Guardian, and Sun newspapers

Authors Avatar

Investigation into the representation of the May 2011 Alternative Vote Referendum in articles from the Telegraph, Guardian, and Sun newspapers.

I have chosen to analyse three texts from the time of the May 2011 Alternative Vote Referendum. One from the Guardian newspaper, in favour of introducing the Alternative Vote (AV) system, and one each from the Telegraph and the Sun newspapers, both against AV, and the referendum itself.

The first text is an article from the May 3rd edition of the Telegraph, entitled ‘Vote to thwart this destructive meddling”. I expect The Telegraph, being a traditionally right-of-centre publication and oftentimes supporter of the Conservative Party, would be opposed to the AV referendum and AV itself, as that is the policy of the Conservatives, and this article confirms that, as it derides the system and the referendum throughout.

In the first paragraph of the article, the author states that “this referendum is a thoroughly unwelcome distraction from the far more pressing matters facing the nation”. This independent clause suggests that the AV referendum is bad for Britain, as it will distract the public and politicians from issues much more serious. The common noun ‘distraction’ is used within the independent clause to portray the referendum as inconsequential and unnecessary.

The article goes on to deride the Yes Campaign, calling it “highly sententious”. The use of the adjective ‘sententious’ portrays the Yes Campaign as a pompous and unsubstantial one, undermining their arguments.

Later on in the article, the writer says that the the Liberal Democrat - and broadly pro-AV - part of the Coalition government “is obsessed with constitutional tinkering.” The use of the verb ‘tinkering’ suggests that the Lib Dems are clumsily trying to mess around with the country’s voting system.

In the same paragraph, the writer doesn’t even refer to the Liberal Democrats by name, instead choosing to call them “the party that came third in the last election” compounds the writer’s annoyance about the fact that a party that didn’t win the election is getting a chance to change the way future elections are contested. Using the definite article ‘the’ and the concrete noun ‘party’ together, shows that the writer has such little respect for the Liberal Democrats - the architects of the AV referendum - that he can’t even bring himself to call them by their name.

In the final paragraph of the article, the writer lays the blame for instigating the referendum on “a clique of political insiders.” The use of the common noun ‘clique’ along with ‘political insiders’ connotes secrecy and shadowiness, and is meant to evoke unease in the reader. With this use of language the writer portrays the architects of the referendum as unaccountable unknowns, who can’t be trusted.

The second text is an article from the Guardian newspaper, dated May 4th 2011, entitled ‘Yes to AV is yes to a fairer politics’, written by the leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband. As Miliband has publicly come out in favour of changing the voting system to AV, I expect this article will portray the referendum in a positive light.

The second paragraph of the article reads “Tories are clear: vote no for self-preservation. Lib Dems: vote yes to do the same. What should Labour people do?” This use of syntactic parallelism communicates to the reader that Labour voters can participate in the referendum, too, and that they don’t have to side with either the Conservatives with a no vote, or the Liberal Democrats with a yes vote.

Join now!

The noun phrase ‘Labour people’ is used extensively throughout the article to refer to people who vote Labour, ostensibly to include the audience, who - due to the Guardian being a left-wing publication - will likely be made up of many Labour supporters. Miliband includes uses language to include the audience, as he’ll be more likely to bring people around to his point of view (that the referendum is a good thing, and that people should vote yes) by doing so.

In the third paragraph, Miliband writes “ I say vote yes because it supports the kind of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay