The article includes opinions from many different people and services. Many of these are backed up by quotations. The newspaper says that Archer has received ‘an estimated 500,000 for his diaries’. The critics say ‘the spirit of regulations preventing payments to criminals has been breached ’. The language used within this quotation suggests that Archer has not broken the law itself, but instead the ‘spirit’ of the law’, according to the critics. Richard Charkin argues that Lord Archer is not profiting from his crime. He says that Lord Archer’s book ‘is about the penal system. It is about his experiences in prison.’ However the article ends saying that a Labour MP is to ‘ask the PCC to investigate the deal’ because he believes the ‘rules are being broken’. The article quotes him to have said ‘making crime pay for Lord Archer. It’s a case of cash for convicts’. This last particular phrase used is an example of alliteration. The word ‘convicts’ is a strong word to use. It identifies Archer as a rough villain. The article could have used a more neutral word such as prisoners or inmates. The effect of this again is to allow the reader to see Archer in a worse light. It is a very effective note to end the article on because it is very strong and will get people thinking on whether it is right to allow Archer to publish the book.
The effect of quoting different people is to portray different opinions without sounding biased. Everything said is from a source so the newspaper article just presents different views and lets the reader decide. This is one thing this article is very good at: it does not criticize or sympathize with anybody or thing. There is no evidence of the newspaper being biased towards or against Archer or the prison services. However there is some strong loaded language used such as ‘disgraced’. A non-biased article is good because it makes the article more believable and readers have more faith in it.
The Mail on Sunday takes a different approach to the Lord Archer story. This is immediately obvious in the title ‘ Losing his TV set: The price Archer will pay for 300,000’, suggesting Archer’s punishment will only be to lose his TV set. This is very different from the extra year in jail punishment spoke of in the Sunday Telegraph. The effect of using this title is that it captures the reader’s attentions, it is scandalous, designed to make the reader shocked or annoyed. The mention of so much money will captivate reader’s attentions. It is more interesting than the title from The Sunday Telegraph, especially as it is printed much larger. The title already suggests that the newspaper has taken a stance over the story. It appears to disagree with this punishment for Archer, depicting it as unfair.
The article from The Mail on Sunday spreads over 2/3s of a page. It is at first glance more interesting than the previous article because it contains a large color picture of Lord Archer and his wife, and a smaller picture of the book he has recently published. Articles with pictures beside them seize the reader’s attention. The caption under the picture of Archer and his wife reads ‘inside job:’ which suggests a crime has been committed from inside prison. ‘Inside job’ is a word used to refer to those who use their access to privileged information to commit a crime. It is an exaggerated and dramatic term to use, which will catch the reader’s interest. ‘Archer could pocket a fortune from his prison diary, left, which could ease his and wife Mary’s cash flow problems’ This sentence is intended to be humorous because it is sarcastic. The lord and lady are not expected to have any money troubles or ‘cash flow problems’. Humor is a method used by journalists to incite their readers. Also, here is introduced a motive for releasing the book that was not mentioned in the other article. However the article does not hold substantial evidence that this is true, and not just a conclusion drawn by the reporter for the purpose of obtaining public interest. The article says that this had been said by ‘sources close to the family’. Nevertheless it does go on to say that Archer recently paid out 2.7 million to Express Newspapers.
The Mail on Sunday article is similarly set out in columns. Unlike The Sunday Telegraph this article contains larger font for the first two paragraphs of the article. This is done because it contains the basis of the story and larger font stands out more. There is one enlarged quote, which reads ‘He simply put his memoirs in the post’. The reporter chose to enlarge this because it will surprise the readers. It is a controversial point: should Archer really have just been allowed to post his memoirs. The article uses language such as ‘far from smuggling the manuscript out ’ which suggests this is what would have been expected. The article goes on to explain that prison authorities can check prisoners outgoing post and that they could have censored Archer’s book. This leaves the reader wondering why they allowed Archer’s book to get out. Could it be because he is a Lord and has high social status than the average prisoner? I think that is what the article is suggesting throughout. It does this because it wants to raise a point, make the readers think and get their attention.
The language in this article uses more adjectives than the Sunday Telegraph article, examples of this are: Calls were made for Archer to be dealt with ‘harshly’. A spokesman ‘criticized’ the prison service. This has the effect of persuading to the reader to agree with the reporter’s point of view. Unlike the Sunday Telegraph article it refuses to sit on the fence. Both the articles are similar to each other in some of the ways they were written. For instance it is written like a story with intervening quotes and opinions from different people. Frances Crook says ‘anyone should have the right to free speech and free expression’. The article also stops to explain facts to the reader such as ‘letters or phone calls to or from the prison can be read’.
The Mail on Sunday talks about many more different aspects relating to the story than the Sunday telegraph which chooses to stick to the main story. The Mail on Sunday article speaks of the ‘cash flow problem’. It explains what else has happened to Archer whilst he has been in prison, ‘used a weekend home leave to attend a champagne party’ and ‘lavish lunches with prison staff ’. The word ‘lavish’ suggests to the reader that Archer is having an easy time, living the life of a high society, rich man. It is said because the reporter feels that Archer should not be treated as well as he is, because he is a criminal. It goes on to explain that these ‘breaches of prison rules’ has meant he has been transferred.
The first paragraph of this article says Archer is ‘expected to escape any severe punishment’ for publishing his Prison Diaries. It also states that the diary is likely to net him at least 300,000. The word ‘escape’ suggests to the reader that Archer deserves a punishment and is getting out of it. The 300,000 is also a lot less than the 500,000 the Sunday Telegraph said Archer had gained. The effect of money written of in the first paragraph is also make the reader interested and angry that Archer has received so much money but will not be punished for his crime.
The title stating that the punishment for Archer’s crime is to have his TV removed is not completely accurate. A prison service insider as one of a number of possible punishments mentioned it. The article picked up on this and enlarged its importance to capture reader’s attention because it sounds like a stupid and unfair punishment. The article also mentions that ‘under Prison Rule 55, Archer could have seven weeks added to his sentence’. However this is still a lot less than the ‘extra year’ mentioned in the other article.
The two Newspaper articles were very similar in many ways because they were of the same type of media. I found the main differences between them were the main facts of their stories, the punishments disagreed with each other. They both used different techniques for get the readers attention. The purpose of this was to capture and maintain an interest in the article. The overall purpose is to sell newspapers, and make money. The Sunday Telegraph is known to be a more trustworthy newspaper than tabloids such as the Mail on Sunday. The article in the Sunday Telegraph was a straightforward news event and it had no signs of being biased. All the facts were presented The Mail on Sunday appealed more to people’s need for gossip and scandal, it tried to make the reader feel annoyed and shocked. This article was better at catching the reader’s eye because of the layout and bright pictures. I think the Mail on Sunday also did a better job of maintaining the reader’s interest because most people like to read about the more scandalous side of stories and it is more interesting when an article sways your emotions. The Sunday Telegraph, can be trusted to give a relatively non-biased true account but it is less interesting to read. The language in both articles was very similar; both used simple, factual writing backed up with quotes.
