In both papers there’s quite a large coverage of the privacy case in both papers. There is more coverage in the Tabloid due to the Sun being more of a human-interest paper. The Sun has devoted two pages to this completely riduculouus case where Catherine Zeta Jones and her newly wed husbund, Michael Douglas are suing “Hello” magazine for taking unauthorized pictures of the pair on there wedding day. Although they were reluctant to receive the hefty sum of 1 million pounds from the magazine “OK” to give them exclusive rights at there wedding back in November 2002.
The Sun completely “wasted” 2 ½ pages on this hypocritical case, and this included 9 pictures of the “ camera shy couple”, funnily enough Zeta Jones was quite happy to smile for the camera at these film premiers but why not her own wedding. There are five articles on the privacy case; all repeated the exact same thing as the last. As I read the five articles I highlighted each sentence separating them in two groups, fact and opinion. Over 60% of the coverage was opinion. I also noted that the Sun in particular contradicted itself with facts. This was on the front cover of the
Sun-
“Printing unauthorised photos of their 2002 November marriage”
When opening the paper and reading ahead the apaper then stated-
“November 2000 wedding in New York”
I feel this is particularily poor as it shows a sheer lack of communication in the sun team, as I feel it is wrose to get the right date and the contradict yourself, rather than just simple getting the date completely wrong all through out the paper.
The first article was very small and was just a “taster” to make you read ahead this was on the front cover and its spece was so small they couldn’t even fot the whole of the work “picture” in and they had to write “pix”.
The second article was again very small but it did have a whole page of coverage, it was a small article surrounded in photographs of the couple. The next artical was more serious, and gave a good account of the court case and just a general over view of all the instances. There are also a further two short articles voicing other peoples opinions. Of these five articles I found the
“Star who could win Oscar for hypocrisy”
This article interested me as the author had a sense of humour, and summed up just how “stupid” the rich and famous are. Allthough the article was only a mere 3 column inches long it did get a very good point across, as they used quite simple language that a seven year old could read. Surounding this small article was seven photograpgs of the hypocritical actress.
The last line of this article was –
“if the publicity doesn’t match her careful plans she can get very upset” althought his is an opinion written as fact it does give some insite of Zeta Jones’s character. As “Hello” found out.
I feel this whole case shows the stupidity of celebratie As the couple only receive ½ millions pounds form ok, but had to pay out 3 million pound court fee’s how on earth does that make sense?
The Daily Telegraph also had quite an eloborate coverage of the “Privacy” case with again 2 pages devoted to the Zeta Jones case. The articles are very different to the tabloid newspapers with more challenging words such as “paparazzi” and “dishonesty” which a seven year old cannot read. So the language is a little more taxing than the language in the Sun (tabloids). In both papers there is a sentence to each paragraph, so all paragraphs are rather short and straight to the point.
The articles in The Daily Telegragh are more broad and focus on all aspects, money and the political side of the case, but The Sun didn’t do that it just focused on the main “human interest” account.
Although both papers do have a large amount of coverage on this privacy case. Thye focus mainly on the war in Iraq.