This article is a factual one. It states facts about the trial and also includes quotes from the judge (Mr. Justice Lindsey). This article by Mickeal Hornsnell is a neutral article as he doesn’t include any of his own opinions, he just states what the judge said and thought, which was mainly, ‘that just because the couple are well known and are always in the public eye it doesn’t mean that they should be treated any differently to an ‘ordinary’ wedding and therefore have no claim in having there privacy invaded.’
The use made of photos
The photos in the Times for the Catherine Zeta Jones privacy case only real purpose is to serve as a visual reminder to the reader, this is so that there is no mistake as to who the reader thinks Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas.
The extent to which the article is objective or biased
I think that the article written by Michael Hornsnell can’t really be biased because there are so many quotes from the court judge. So the article can only be objective and factual which I think that it is. The article is mainly an account of the judge and his reasons for his ‘verdict’ on the case. This article also includes the facts on the cost of the case and the compensation that the couple received. This means that the article doesn’t have any biased in it.
The language used
The language in the article is easy to understand and would not have a high reading age. There are not many long words but are more common words in the article.
The balance of fact and opinion
There are only facts in this article because the writer has inserted so many quotes from the judge that he has left little room for his opinion. Also there are many figures of the cost of the case and figures are widely believed to be true and therefore facts.
The predominant message explicit in each
There are no messages that are easily and quickly noticed by the reader because the article is mainly reporting with just the quotes and figures and has no real opinion of what the writer thought about the case.
The purpose of the article
The real purpose of this article is just to inform the reader of the happenings in the courtroom. This is again because the article is mainly quotes from the judge.
The Daily Mail – Last Refuge For the Dictator
The use made of photos
The Times uses its large photo to emphasize the that Saddam’s time is up.Even though the article does a good job of putting a picture into your head the photos finish the job. It dominates the page and therefore are made unavoidable to the reader; the photo shows how the Iraqis are having to protect themselves in the city and taking what ever they like including money from a bank. To show that they are serious one man is wielding a knife to act as a warning to others to stay out of his way. This also tells the readers that the fact that Iraq has become a very unstable place to live because there is now no police force to protect the streets and there is no one to control the situation.
The extent to which each is objective and biased
As you read the article you get a feeling that the writer of the article is not impressed by the way that the forces have controlled and handled the war in Iraq. They seem to me to be surprised that only “Out of the 32 hospitals in Baghdad, only three are operating and not in a
normal manner”.
They try to portray this quote in such a way so that they make the reader agree with them. So overall this article at least seems very anti-war and it shows how unimpressed the writers are about this whole affair.
The language used
The language in the article is very straightforward and simple to understand with only a few words that younger readers of the newspaper might not be familiar with. But I think that generally these words would be no problem to the age group at which this broadsheet is aimed at.
The balance of fact and opinion
In the article there are a lots more facts for there are quite a few quotes from different organisations, who say, “Hospitals are suffering severe shortages of water’’
This then makes the statements fact not opinions even though the article as a whole is mostly consisted of opinions, the number of facts out number the opinions making the article factual.
The purpose of the article
The purpose of this article is to inform you of the terrible state that Iraq is in and to try and win your sympathy for the Iraqis and to agree with the anger and disgust of some people.
The Catherine Zeta Jones .vs. Hello! Magazine
The use of photos
Out of the photos on the pages of which the article is situated only 2 applied to have anything to do with the article it’s self. The picture that applies to the article is a small one. They are photos of Hello! who according to the article seemed happy with the judges decision.
The extent to which each is objective and biased and the purpose of the article
Like the article in the Times on the same story there really isn’t any way that the reporter is able to include their opinion because the article is just an account of the what went on and what the judge said to the couple and the magazine. So like before there are many quotes from people like the judge (Mr. Justice Lindsay and Eduardo Sanchez the owner of Hello!). This therefore makes the article more objective.
The language used
Like most tabloid articles the language is simple and easy to read and understand for all ages that the newspaper is generally aimed at
The balance of fact and opinion
Again like the other article this one is a factual one because it contains quotes from different people. This also means that the Mickeal Hornsnell has left himself little room in which he can share his own opinion. So just like the Times article this one is plain reporting.
The Times – Iraq
The language used
The language in this article is like most tabloid articles, for it is simple and easy, and maybe even a little bit to gory for the age group at which the paper has targeted. Arabic words may also b a problem to understand and even pronounce
The balance of fact and opinion.
This article is all fact, otherwise it wouldn’t get the message across about Saddam. An eyewitness account has also been involved in this article so weather it is completely factual or not is debatable. Also I came to question how the writer came to get hold of information on the ways of torture that Saddam used that caused most of the people who were tortured to die. After reading this article I wasn’t sure what to think about it. Is it factual or opinion? I suppose that can b left up to the reader.
The extent to which each is objective and biased and the purpose of the article
The article is made to make the reader feel horrified about what man can do and get away with doing such inhuman things to other humans. She doesn’t leave out any details and tries to make the torture sequences as graphic as possible. This I think is done to make you think about what kind of lives the Iraqis had while Saddam was in power. As a whole the article isn’t biased, it’s more an objective piece of writing.
Conclusion
After comparing the two stories, Catherine Zeta Jones. Vs. Hello! trial, and the conflict in Iraq, the two different newspapers the broadsheet The Daily Mail and the tabloid The Times, I have concluded that the papers write about anything that they know will make the most money, no matter what it consists of., so what you see is generally what you get because if you see a cheaper paper, or a small newspaper sitting on the side it is more likely to be a ‘low quality’ newspaper. Their front page will usually be covered in advertisements along with popular news and gossip. So over all you know that as long as the people who are able to get more money by moulding the paper into what they want it to be like and how they know that people will read ‘rubbish’ as well as important news just to get their money. The Times on the other hand is a different story because they have given priority to the serious news. They have longer and more complex articles that are well written and accurate. The paper isn’t cluttered with advertisements in the middle of a serious article and it is generally a more interesting read.
