Most of the sentences of the editorial are short, sharp and simple. The sentences aren’t very detailed but provide enough information. E.g. “But we must not forget that no one forces them to box”, “They do it for the money”. The majority of the words used are very simple; most of them are single syllable or have only 2 syllables. Therefore this tabloid is attracted to basic readers.
The bias of the tabloid is very obvious. Although it says many good points that disagree with boxing e.g. “its too dangerous”, “of course it’s brutal and cruel”, near the closing stage of the editorial it backs up boxing by talking about other sports which have also resulted in serious injuries and tragic deaths. E.g. “How many rugby players are paralyzed with broken necks?” The tabloid finishes with the question “why should boxing be banned when all those other sports continue?” This question makes a big point, and makes the audience agree that the boxing business should stay.
The daily stars headline ‘they knew the risks’ grabs attention straight away, this is because of the big, bold lettering and the simple sharp phrase. The bias of the editorial is clearly shown in the headline, and we expect to read something in favour to boxers, especially since the ‘knew’ the risks. The headline also rolls of the tongue easily, mainly because of the single syllable words used and the rhythm.
The content is very simple and easy to understand, this suggest that a high reading ability is not needed for this tabloid. The tabloid starts of with “THE fight was ferocious, brutal, bloody.” This fact gives the impression that the Daily star is against boxing but when you continue reading, it explains, “the end was tragic, but it does not mean that boxing must be banned.” There are also some facts used in the content. E.g. “Both Nigel Benn and Gerald McClellan knew the risks. They are grown men free to make their own decisions.” and “It can rocket a man from the gutter to riches. Or plunge him to purgatory.”
Most of the sentences used are average length but there are some longer sentences. There are many different types of words but the three main used are factual words, adjectives and dramatic words. E.g. “The fight was ferocious, brutal, bloody.” These words are factual and they are adjectives, which make the content dramatic. Also most of the words used in the tabloid are single syllable, this gives the audience an easy reading flow and rhythm.
The bias is very clear from the whole of the editorial. The Daily start talk about the good and the bad points of boxing but in the end they are for boxing, and feel that the sport should be kept.
I think that most readers will agree with this tabloid. Mainly because this tabloid has strong sentences making boxing sound like a good sports. E.g. “As a trial of courage, strength and guts it was unmatched.”
The big, bold headline of the socialist workers stands out. The headline also has alliterative language, which gives of some sort of effect. E.g. boxing bosses, count the cash. It is very difficult to tell if the editorial is biased by just reading the headline, this makes the reader want to read on to know more.
The content is written very professionally which suggest that this editorial is for people with a certain reading age. The content contains many statistics, which make the article more interesting. E.g. boxing is a multimillion-pound business, businessmen (generally white), boxers (often back). These statistics make the reader notice, and want to read on to find out things you didn’t know before.
The sentences are generally short; there is only 1 long sentence in each paragraph. The sentences are very precise; the short sentences contain enough information so it’s quick and easy for the businessmen to read.
Bloated rich businessmen are an example of exaggeration used in the editorial, this phrase is talking about those rich men who are greedy and only care for them self. Raged is a powerful word used in the text, it gives of sense anger, and makes the content more dramatic. Most of the words used aren’t very complicated which prevents the off-putting feeling.
Even after reading the whole editorial it is still very difficult to tell which side of the debate it biased towards. It shows many point for and against boxing. ‘Boxing is a multi-million pound business’, ‘sports promoters make millions’, ‘ chance of achieving a better life’, ‘boxers are little more than dogs’, ‘beat each other to a pulp’.
In conclusion of reading this article, I believe that although something should be done about the deaths that boxing brings, the decision to box then die or to live is the boxers.