Compare and contrast the three newspaper articles, explaining carefully what you like and dislike about them.
Are you in the right place?
Jump to Media Studies and see how teachers think you should prepare in:
Extracts from this essay...
Compare and contrast the three newspaper articles, explaining carefully what you like and dislike about them. In this coursework I will be examining 3 different newspaper articles about the famous fight between Frank Bruno and Tim Witherspoon. All 3 articles were published the morning after the fight so none of them would have had the hindsight of what the others had said. The articles are 'A Brave Bruno Fails' from The Star, 'Bruno left In A Wasteland' from The Guardian and 'Fans Hail Bruno As Title Bid Fails' from The Daily Mail. There are 2 different types of newspaper these are tabloid and broadsheet. Broadsheet newspapers have an average reading age of about 14 whereas the average reading age of tabloids is only 7-8. From the 3 newspapers The Daily Mail and The Star are tabloids whereas The Guardian is a Broadsheet. The way the articles start and finish is important. In The Star the first paragraph is a single long sentence. This isn't something you would expect from a tabloid. The Guardian also has one long sentence for the first paragraph. This is something you would expect more from the Guardian, as it is a Broadsheet. The first paragraph in The Daily Mail is split into more than one sentence, something you expect more from a tabloid. The way the 3 articles end is also interesting. The Star ends very complimentary of Frank Bruno. It says how he showed 'strength' and 'courage', how he had a 'heart of a lion'. It ends on a triumphant note, saying that Bruno has not lost everything. The Guardian ends with some quotes from Frank Witherspoon. He is being a good sportsman, saying how Bruno could 'come back again' if he wanted to.
In The Daily Mail it says 'the manufacturing of Bruno was incomplete'. The Guardian journalist goes on to give Bruno some advice about the fight. 'Bruno ought to have produced more sweeping moves across the ring...' This is what The Guardian journalist thinks Bruno should have done. This is only with hindsight that he is able to give this advice though; Witherspoon has already won the match. The Guardian doesn't really compliment Bruno at all. It does say how he 'held all the aces when it came to reach.' The other time it could be interpreted as a compliment in the first paragraph. It says 'Bruno was like an intrepid explorer trekking the icy waste.' Someone who is an intrepid explorer is very brave and fearless. The icy waste is Tim Witherspoon. It is saying that in his fight against Witherspoon Bruno was very brave. In this extended metaphor it goes on to say, 'suddenly he slipped into a crevasse'. The crevasse is his loss against Witherspoon. The Daily Mail has quite a good attitude towards Bruno. It is a lot better than the attitude from The Guardian. It opens with the sentence 'The only thing Frank Bruno lost at Wembley in the early hours of yesterday was a fight'. This means that he grew in status; even though he lost the fight he has gained a lot of peoples respect. It goes on to say how he grew also in the 'affection of the fans'. All of this means the newspaper thinks he fought well. We can see that the newspaper likes Bruno when it continues to say he 'gave the last ounces of his heart and guts - and showed ability enough to suggest a long way into the fight that he had a real winning chance.'
This is probably correct because the majority of boxing matches are done very late at night going into very early the next morning. The Star talks about the 'nation's longing to see a Briton crowned king'. This is similar to The Daily Mail when it says how the fans were 'hoping to cheer Britain's first heavyweight champion of the world this century.' I think that The Star article is mostly made up. The whole of the first column is just something the reporter has made up. As we know from The Guardian article there were no media inside Bruno's room so there is no way they would have heard the conversation. It is very much biased towards Bruno; Witherspoon is only really mentioned once. It mentions how Bruno still has his dignity and it tells him not to feel guilty. I liked this article because even though the Briton has lost it tells us that there is still hope and is very optimistic. It is even slightly triumphant, which is a thing to be when you have lost. The Guardian article is very opinionated. It tells us lots about what the journalist thought was happening in the fight. This article is good because it is very unbiased, it is by far the least biased of the 3 articles. I don't like it so much because of this. It is very depressing and disappointed. The Daily Mail article is very detailed. It is good because it gives us a good account of the fight. I like it because you can visualise the fight almost as if you are there. It is also very optimistic, it starts with a good attitude, Bruno has not lost everything. The way it says it was only a fight. The journalist makes it sound that what he gained by losing is much more than he would have gained by winning the fight.
Found what you're looking for?
- Start learning 29% faster today
- Over 150,000 essays available
- Just £6.99 a month
- Over 180,000 student essays
- Every subject and level covered
- Thousands of essays marked by teachers