Another noticeable aspect of the style used by the author in Account A the systematic and logical progression of events and presentation of facts, often in chronological order, and because of the way the reader is led through the facts and events a greater understanding and clarity of information is conveyed. This style is evident in the Account A’s description of the facts that emerged through the investigation concerning the outbreak of the fire. Again some slightly more florid language is used to draw attention to the tragic nature of the fire: “the extent of the tragedy that engulfed mainly American and Canadian tourists..” “Its causes remained largely undetermined last night but there were increasingly insistent claims by survivors that they heard two or more explosions before the fire began” This is illustrative of the step-by-step commentary of events, introducing the possibility of a number of explosions, then the activity of the hotel’s trade union and a “fierce labour dispute” is suggested by to the reader to “eventually prove to be the key” to the suspicious outbreak of fire. Not only does this demonstrate how Account A weaves the events and complications of a situation together logically, it also shows the possible desire of the author to guide the reader through the events condescendingly so as to present one assumption as being the more obvious or plausible, whilst still allowing the reader to make an informed decision, but the facts are presented as the author sees fit. The author then goes on to quote an eye witness that was alleged to have heard a worker in the hotel casino to have said “don’t you even think about going there, there is going to be a bombing”. The idea of backing up speculations with evidence adds to the factual authenticity of the article which is an element important in the style of this article.
The author makes an effort for the article to remain balanced by presenting each side of the argument with a quotation from “Mr Jose Cadiz”, again who is named retaining the factual authenticity of the article, “I categorically reject that we’re dealing with sabotage – that’s anti-union talk.” Although the article ends with a quotation from the governor of Puerto Rico who is again named “who said initially ‘We cannot discard a possible criminal hand.’ But at a news conference last night he was reported to have said that he now believed the fire was caused by arson.” This is perhaps another example of slight bias towards the opinion that there was criminal involvement in the fire; by ending the article with a suggestion that arson was to blame, and thus leaving the reader with that final thought despite it not being substantiated in the article and again without any kind of direct accusation by the author.
The motivation of Account A is to convey facts with the occasional hint of an opinion creeping in. However Account A does not aim to be an enthralling read or to entertain and as such is the type of article that would be expected to be found in a broadsheet judging by its serious, balanced and factual content.
Account B from the start has a radically different focus than that of Account A. where Account A enters into a paragraph of factual prose Account B begins with an immediate human interest element with “A MUM-TO BE trapped” specifically referring to a pregnant woman helps intensify the sense of human tragedy by creating a life-death juxtaposition of incongruity, this is continued as the message is described as being “scrawled on a pillow” with the rest and relaxation image of a pillow and the death and terror of an inferno not usually being associated with each other. This ‘pillow SOS’ is reinforced by the header of the article also, which highlights the focus and emotional, human aspect of the story. It then goes on to make a populist film reference, comparing the situation of the hotel fire to that of the film “Towering Inferno” which many of the readers may have seen, trying to make the article more interesting to read and immediately conveying the intensity and drama of the scene.
In Account B the story is told through the individual stories of people involved. There is little use of facts and statistics and the narrative is almost wholly constructed from eyewitness accounts that are largely unsubstantiated. The article dramatises the fire with its personal and touching accounts “please help – we are three Danish women and one of us is pregnant” appealing to the sympathy of the reader for these three ‘helpless’ women. Along with the inclusion of such personal accounts emotive words are used throughout to heighten the sense of danger and fear: “terrified SOS” creates an image of death with its association to maritime accidents, also powerful negative imagery is used in the description of the “charred bodies” of tourists. It describes the hotel as being “packed with guests celebrating New Year” before it “turned into a flaming torch after three explosions” it also describes the hotel as being a “luxury beachfront hotel” strangely combining of the idea of celebration and with that of death, and the luxury of the hotel with the grim destructiveness of the fire. The sense of tragedy and intrigue is intensified by adding “no one knows if the women were saved” to provoke the anxiety and empathy of the reader about the aforementioned Danish women. The whole effect created in the first few paragraphs is one of horror and death; far detached from that of Account A with its neutral and factual explanation of events.
The picture attached to Account B occupies a large portion of the page (larger than the article itself) which differs from that of Account A. also the picture shows a far more desperate and dramatic rescue scene with a screaming casualty being rushed out by medics with the suitably dramatic caption “From the jaws of death… a terrified guest is carried screaming to safety” which again differs from account A that pictures a far less dramatic and more distant scene. The article itself is laid out below the picture with a large centred header with medium sized text (bigger than that in Account A) spread out around it. Also a huge header is sunk into the picture “INFERNO SOS ON A PILLOW” in capitals attracting the reader’s attention and then leading the eye down the page first to the main title then to the picture. The article text itself seems to be placed with lesser importance in the overall appearance of the page, which is designed to have maximum visual impact.
Single word sub-headings are used to guide the reader through the article “Probe”, “Balcony”, “Smoke” this shows the focus on simplicity in Account B contrasting with the depth of information found within Account A.
The next section shifts tone somewhat, beginning with a brief explanation of how “the FBI was called in” and then goes on to talk about more positive acts of heroism. Unlike Account A Account B excludes the fact the island is US-owned so making the idea of the FBI being called in more sinister and linking in with the “sinister group called the Macheteros – the Machete Wielders” (a particularly violent, mob image) being suspected of sabotage – another powerful sensationalist assertion, although there is no evidence for this, and no such speculation appears in Account A. This also links in with the header “Clue to ‘Machete men’ bomb plot as 100 die” that creates a demonic and very violent image and also implies the fire was organised before any justification for that opinion is given. Merely by the wording of the first paragraph, the reader is expected to assume the guilt of the union.
Its author then states how the fire started “just ten minutes after a Teamsters union meeting rejected the hotel management’s pay offer” instantly linking the powerful Teamsters union from the USA (who were always suspected of Mafia connections) with the fire, implying the union started. This opinion is backed up by reporting “one of the union’s lawyers is suspected by the FBI as being a Machetero leader” although it does not quote any source to substantiate this idea. Account B prioritises its entertainment value over its factual authority.
As in Account A, Account B mentions “a couple at a nearby guest house said they were warned there would be a bombing”. However it does not give their names or provide details of how they came about that information – contrasted with Account A. The author then makes another comment intended to dramatise the fire with “Television viewers across the world..” giving a sense of actual global involvement in the story, allowing the reader to be more actively interested “..Were stunned by scenes at the hotel captured live by cameramen”. This creates an image of the whole world being in shock, which in turn encourage the reader to be shocked themselves. It also tries to get across the real-time action element of the story, with all of these features combining to make the story more dramatic and involving.
It then goes on to discuss the ‘drama’ and “amazing stories” again with less of a focus on verification of their truth, but rather the excitement and drama of them. It talks about the “Heartbreak, horror and heroism”. Devices like this alliterative cliché help make the story as a whole more memorable, and cue the emotions the reader is supposed to identify with regarding the tragedy.
The image of “Helicopters plucking” tourist off the hotel conjures the image of small insects more than people and the sense that their rescue is just in time. Also the tourists are described as “screaming survivors,” suggesting that the reader is sufficiently engrossed in the events to in effect ‘hear’ their pain. This is followed by “21-storey hotel and balconies in scenes reminiscent of the film of Towering Inferno” in an explicit analogy with the film. The idea of television and film ‘scenes’ is also continued throughout to highlight the ‘extraordinary’ events of the fire, like films. However, we are reminded that this event is real – not fictional.
It describes how “guests slid to safety on ropes made from bed sheets” suggesting the positive elements of bravery and innovation opposing the tragedy of the fire.
Although many key facts included in Account A are omitted from Account B, Account B enters in to great detail regarding personal stories, providing the ages and names of those survivors who made “amazing escapes”. Most of the descriptions of the human interest stories are very hyperbolic. “Schoolgirl Maria Lagrasso, 16, from New Jersey told of racing down corridors only to be met by walls of flame and smoke” using words implying the desperation to survive, such as ‘racing down corridors’ and images like ‘walls of flame and smoke’ to create an atmosphere of fear and death.
Another device used in many of the personal accounts is the offsetting the relaxed imagery and ideas of lazy holiday enjoyment “he had just woken up from an afternoon siesta..” with death and shock images “.. to find five people overcome by smoke in the corridor outside his room”. These juxtapositions create a stark contrast that helps to animate the tragedy and fear described in the article. Quotations are used selectively and are usually quite melodramatic and these combined with brief linking passages stating the more benign facts, create eye-witness accounts that are as exciting as possible “ ‘I thought I was going to die there and then. The only escape was down the balconies.’ Other less agile guests plunged to their deaths as they tried to get away from the flames.” And accounts like this give a more graphic sense of horror with phrases like ‘jaws of death’ conjures images of horror on an almost biblical scale.
The article concludes with a brief quotation of some statistics of the accident “Last night, 37 bodies had been recovered from the wreckages, and many visitors were still missing”. The article ends with “most of the 1,000 guests in the 450-room hotel were Americans and Canadians.” possibly with the implication that the people caught up in the accident were of the same nationality and ‘just like us’ to incite the empathy of readers and allow them to identify with the story.
A variety of differences can be seen between Account A and Account B, the first and most obvious being the attention to factual detail in Account A opposed the attention to personal detail in Account B. Account B is clearly written to entertain and interest and although Account A must endeavour to do this too, its author places a higher priority on the article being a comprehensive and reliable source of information. For the target audience of Account A the entertainment and information motivations may not conflict, but for the average reader of Account B the entertainment role must take some precedent. Also, in Account B, the reader could be seen as taking a more passive role than in Account A, because in Account A a more neutral perspective is taken with balanced argument on each side encouraging the reader to formulate their own ideas and opinions, whereas in Account B emotions and opinions are dictated to the reader more. This may give Account B a quality of being easy to read that may appeal to some readers wanting to pick up and read an article for entertainment without having to put much thought into comprehending it. Another key difference between Account A and Account B is the focus on human interest in Account B as opposed to the focus on events in Account A. Again these different styles will appeal to different readerships. Furthermore, the layout of Account A and Account B differ in several key ways which may relate to the ease of reading of each article with Account A having a smaller picture and smaller text font than Account B. Although the two articles are different in many respects they do bear some similarities, such as the quotation of some of the same statistics and facts. The basic storyline is broadly similar between the two, although the presentation of it differs markedly.
Also, Account B does not argue in a balanced or subtle way as does Account A. No other side of the argument is quoted and the union’s views are not aired. Any political content is dictated by the author.
Account C occupies a double-page spread, larger than either of the other two articles. Although it is of roughly as many words as Account B, Account A has less words than Account B and C, but has greater factual content, which illustrates its succinctness. Account C has two large pictures to the left and right of the page, between occupying the space of a whole page between them. The picture to the left locates and clearly shows the appearance of the hotel in a similar way to Account A’s picture but the picture to the right shows a more dramatic balcony rescue scene in a similar style to the photograph attached to Account B. This clearly illustrates the middle-ground, tabloid-broadsheet position of Account C - neither favouring the more factually explicit style of account A nor the more overtly sensationalist style of Account B. The text is set out between each photograph with a short introduction paragraph in a large font spanning three columns. An introduction appears in a similar style to Account B but not to Account A, which remains in the same font throughout. There is a large bold header saying “30 union men held after hotel inferno” immediately setting the tone for the rest of the article. In a similar way, Account B took an accusatory attitude to the union - however Account B’s main focus was still on the human tragedy whereas the focus of Account C appears to be on the placing of blame and accusation of arson. Again, Account C finds its middle ground between each style.
The article continues with the sub heading “tourist death toll may reach hundred after fire bomb horror” implying the union is guilty and the tourists are innocent. This also allows the reader to sympathise with the articles accusations more, as the average reader is more likely to associate with a Western tourist figure than a Caribbean union, putting the reader in the place of the tourist. Sympathy and horror is created in the reader with shock wording like ‘horror’ and ‘fire bomb’.
Sub-headings also appear in a similar way to those seen in Account B, although in Account C there are only two sub-headings in the text, which again demonstrates the melding of the tabloid and broadsheet styles, with the sub-headings ‘panic’ and ‘collapse’ each suggesting the pain, fear and destruction of the fire in a sensationalist way.
The first picture carries the caption “smoke shrouds the gutted hotel” which creates a powerful image of death and void, with the idea of a shroud linking to the idea of death and funerals whilst using a metaphor with fabric to describe how the smoke hides the horrors of the empty skeletal, ‘gutted’ ruins of the hotel. Examples of sensationalist descriptions like this one are also found throughout the story along with traits more usually associated with broadsheets.
In the first section of the article use of facts and statistics is not that dissimilar to those found in Account A. However the facts are presented with a strong opinion and an accusing finger pointed at the union: “notoriously corrupt Teamsters union were suspected last night of planting a fire-bomb”. The use of the phrase ‘notoriously corrupt’ instantly creates an assumption of guilt towards the union, despite the article going on to say that they were only ‘suspected’. However it does continue to give key facts and details such as the exact location of the hotel and those known to be dead as in Account A, 41 known to be killed, going on to say “the death toll may reach 100” without quoting any source for that estimate. It also mentions that most guests were “American or Canadian” which provokes anger, ‘who could do this?’
It goes on to use the fact also included in Account B saying “the fire broke out minutes after angry union members stormed out of a meeting” strongly suggesting the unions guilt yet again by linking these two events although Account C gives more explicit detail than Account B continuing with “where they had voted to strike at midnight over a dispute that simmered had for months” which uses a metaphor with a frying pan to create an angry ‘spitting’ image.
The article then comments that “there had been two previous suspicious fires and the Teamsters had only been allowed to meet in the ballroom under guard” although it does not specify what kind of guard. The immediate assumption is that the union is a high security risk. The two other suspicious fires are also not backed up with any evidence or have any more details given about them. The article is not as authoritative or comprehensive as Account A in its details. Again the reader is led to the assumption that the union has obviously tried to burn the hotel down before.
The same quotation as used in Account A is used in Account C, although Jose Cadiz is quoted in Account C, which does show some effort to balance the argument, he is referred to as a “Teamsters official” and not, as in Account A, the “worker’s spokesman” which is a deliberate effort by the author to discredit the value of his opinion. It also talks of police “rounding up waiters, maintenance men” for “interrogation” which immediately creates an assumption of guilt towards the hotel workers.
The reader is then led on to a quotation from the Governor saying “we cannot discount a criminal hand in this.” with which there is an element of the condescending style of Account A. Whereas the quotation of the union spokesman was made to look less credible the quotation from the governor is made to look more credible as it supports the author’s line of argument by giving his full name, position and title to lend weight to arson theory.
The article then changes tack, switching to a more personal-interest concerned style akin to that of Account B. this is denoted by the first sub-heading “panic”. It begins by talking about “weeping friends and relatives” which is a very emotive description that provokes the sympathy of the reader. Also, the hotel is described as a “gaunt and blackened shell” that creates a war image and one of destruction.
The anger of the author is then lifted from the union to the hotel for their incompetence through not maintaining proper safety devices, “safety devices that either did not work or did not exist when the panic-stricken guests ran screaming for safety” leading the reader to imagine the frightened guests needlessly losing their lives. It then goes on to list specific examples of broken safety devices reported by survivors “no sprinklers”, “emergency doors jammed” with the undertone of blame on ‘easy-going’ foreigners and the poverty that exists in Puerto Rico.
The blaming of the hotel for its incompetence continues with “according to the staff of the hotel’s casino small fires were so routine that they were virtually ignored” and then “it was in the casino where most of the bodies were found” bluntly making the casino workers look very incompetent and uncaring.
Once again, the article makes a relative subtle accusation of blame stating “the police said the first explosion came from the boiler room which is below the casino and next to the ballroom where the union meeting was held” suggesting strongly the union is to blame.
The smoke seeping into the casino is described with the sinister image “lethal black smoke creeping” (although, obviously not lethal for the eye-witness involved). The use of hyperbole in Account C is not as frequent as in Account B, although there are some instances such as the above throughout the article.
The Article comments that in the Casino the Blackjack dealer was reported to have said, “don’t worry” when smoke was spotted in the casino. It, also comments on how “they were still dealing cards when the smoke was coming through. The croupier said there had been other fires but “don’t worry about it, they’ll put it out” which seems to typify the complacent casino staff attitude. Again facts are given but with an element of bias, the author suggesting they are unconcerned or just plain stupid.
Another personal account follows the previous, “Michael Peltyn, 19, from Long Island.” The author is giving a more emotional and less relevant story to the fire, such as a tabloid, although names and ages and other information are still included, showing the combination of the two styles “..was in his hotel room on the 19th floor when his father ran from the poolside and told him ‘There’s a fire. Get out’.” The reader is led to imagine a typical holiday scene, with the father by the ‘poolside’ against the shock of the fire; the readers can picture themselves in this situation. The account continues, using language like “gasp for air” to create a sense of the desperation, also a typical family unit is further described, leading to greater empathy and identification with the story from the average reader.
The article says that fireman found “bodies piled on top of each other in the doorways and lying in the corridors” which creates an image of death with holocaust proportions with bodies piled up on each other, although we know only 41 guests were known to be dead, and we were told that most bodies were in the casino previously.
A very dramatic description of the series of events in the casino is given before the fire began, “As the smoke thickened the lights went out and the casino erupted into panic-stricken chaos.” This is a very easy image to visualise, with a film-like quality.
The next sub-heading is given of “Collapse” which is followed by two paragraphs and two more personal accounts beginning “I fell to a wooden ledge about 50ft down..” The first sentence of the account is supposed to scare the reader with the idea of a 50ft drop “..Ten people followed me” again the article emphasise the chaos of the fire, ‘every man for himself’ “.. and then the ledge collapsed”. The eye-witness account links back to the sub-heading, suggesting nothing is safe. The second account ends the article “Elenour Palemine was standing at the poolside with her three young sisters..” the idea of tragedy is enhanced by the fact that they are young and would not ordinarily be contemplating death or danger. “..They saw smoke coming from the hotel and she commented: ‘we didn’t take it seriously. I saw my mother standing on the balcony and we all waved to her and she waved back.’..” Dramatic irony makes the story more heart-breaking as the reader suspects the mother was actually waving in desperation at the time “.Yesterday the girls were still looking for their mother.” The article ends leaving the story hanging leaving the reader worrying about what may have happened.
In Account C the author is named “from George Gordon” and located “in San Juan, Puerto Rico” at the scene of the tragedy, also a photo of the author is included. This contrasts with Account B where the author is just named “By Ian Hepburn” and in Account A where the author is just named and located “From Michael White” “in Washington” suggesting perhaps Account C was in the most favourable position for local reporting.
Account C holds its middle-ground stance throughout the article in a variety of respects. It mixes the factual content of a broadsheet and the emotional accounts of a tabloid, although it adds its own element to appeal to the reader wanting to be both informed and entertained by personal accounts. It also took its own opinion of the event, which it voiced strongly, but perhaps not as strongly as in Account B, with the emphasise on the blame of the union. The style of Account C is one in which linguistic devices such as alliteration, assonance, metaphors and similes would be expected to reside as it follow a mass-populist approach to the writing of its articles as would Account B. However facts are given, although in a more diluted, less distilled form than those given in Account A. It also follows a more structured path than Account B, which has a tendency to hop around with little linking, creating a more conversational effect, far detached from that of Account A which follows a clear and precise structure of logically linking facts and events.
In conclusion, each newspaper followed very different styles, with strong elements typical of its particular market niche, although it is impossible to make sweeping comments that will always hold true about the style of each type of newspaper, as there is always one variable that cannot be accounted for, the author. This is why the broadsheet style of Account A can contain the occasional slip of dramatic language, and why tabloid Account B can make use of the odd fact and statistic, and why Account C is not just a straight mix of the two, but has its own unique style.
