The articles I will be comparing are about ‘Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets’ premiere. Both articles give their opinions about new film. Both article printed in The Daily Mail (Article one) and Independent (Article two), are dated Monday 4th November, 2002.
Layout is an important clue as to the bias and audience at which the article is aimed at.
At a first glance, the layout of the article in The Daily Mail is much more effective than the article in The Independent at attracting readers’ attention. The first article is the article on the page. This ensures the reader is not distracted by another story. In The Independent, there are another article and several advertisements to take the reader’s attention away from the main headline. The Daily Mail uses a border around the article, making it stand out further. In The Independent, there is no border.
In article one there is a bold typed in big letters headline “Harry’s vanishing act”. In The Independent the letters are much smaller. The headline is longer; therefore the powerful message is not as instant, ‘Broomsticks and bangs spell watchability for Harry Potter II’.
There is three columns of text in The Daily Mail. The article is dominated by a large photograph of Emma Watson who plays Hermione Granger. Also there are pictures of Daniel Radcliffe, who plays Harry Potter, and Robbie Coltrane, who plays Hagrid. Another picture of Daniel on his own. Photo of Richard Harris, who played Dumbledore. And photograph of Emma Watson at last year’s premiere of ‘Harry Potter’. The Independent uses only two photographs. One of Richard Harris and another of Rupert Grint, who plays Ron Withly, Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson.
The Independent newspaper concentrates more on delivering accurate information, than presenting it in a way that will instantly attract the attention of readers. However,
Maria Baisheva
its headline and picture of young stars of the Harry Potter film do provoke interest. The Daily Mail is obviously very keen to draw in the reader’s interest instantly, making them want to read on.
The opening paragraphs from each article are very different. In The Daily Mail writer immediately telling readers about the actors: “THEY are growing up so fast some might suspect magic is at work.” By saying word ‘magic’ he makes readers think of last Harry Potter movie and all the magic things that readers know about Harry Potter.
In The Independent John Walsh begin with a long sentence stating that new Harry Potter film is more interesting then the old one: “AS THOUGH mortally terrified of letting the Harry Potter audience become bored by overfamiliarity, the makers of Harry Potter and the Chamber of secrets have gone for a simple formula: more is more…” The language used in The Independent is more formal than that used in The Daily Mail. There are many detailed facts, perhaps of little interest to the majority of people- even in the opening paragraph, “Everything about this film, which opens on 15 November, is couched on a bigger scale than the prototype.” As in The Daily Mail article, the opening paragraph is only one sentence and it doesn’t say anything about the film.
Throughout the article in The Daily Mail, the emphasis is actors: “Daniel Radcliffe, whose role as Harry Potter made him one of the most famous little boys in the world, has shot up so much he feels it may be time to hang up his broomstick and quit the part.” or “Emma, who plays Harry’s sidekick Hermione Granger, has also grown a lot…” and “…Robbie Coltrane, who again plays man mountain Hagrid…”. Mark Reynolds makes the article dramatic by writing about the death of Richard Harris: “Amid yesterday’s excitement there were tributes to Richard Harris, who played the wise Professor Albus Dumbledore, headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, who died a week ago.” The style of writing is very basic and easy to understand. The vocabulary is accessible to most people. I think this article is interesting for readers, but it doesn’t say anything about the film.
In The Independent, the language is very factual. John Walsh describes the film as fully as possible: “The plot concerns an unknown, hidden room in the Hogwarts dungeons where lurks a monster…”or “Darker resonances can be heard amid the school japes, especially an understated treatment of racism, as the Malfoy family abuse the ‘mud-blood’- any wizard who wasn’t born of pure wizard stock…”. Also reporter writing about the actors: “Ms Grainger is unchanged…”, “Harry and Ron now speak in a gravelly baritone they didn’t have before.” The journalism in broadsheets is usually unbiased, fair, and covering all sides of a story.
I personally prefer the article in The Independent. I feel it gives a more accurate, detailed view of the film and actors. I found I did not need over the top language and ridiculously huge headlines to feel emotionally affected by the issue. The Daily Mail article was less informative. However, it was eye-catching, and language was very emotive. It gives adequate coverage of the new film, to inform someone about the Harry Potter and the Chamber of Sickest, without making losing people’s interest with small details.
