Compare the newspaper articles on smacking and discuss how effectively each presents its arguments.
MEDIA
TASK: Compare the newspaper articles on smacking and discuss how effectively each presents its arguments.
I have read a broadsheet article and a tabloid article on smacking, the broadsheet is the Daily Telegraph and the tabloid the Daily Mirror I will compare them both and write how effectively they present the issue of smacking. People likely to be reading a broadsheet will be the more educated people in the community who have a greater understanding and people likely to be reading the tabloid will be the slightly less educated people.
The Daily Telegraph uses a heading that has the word “urged”, which is a suggestion not an instruction therefore is the issue very serious? It also says “smack children”, which gives no suggestion of excessive violence.
This article uses statistics to try and show the seriousness of the problem it says “9 out of 10 parents thought mild corporal punishment was acceptable”, they say 9 out of 10 because it makes you think and it sounds more than 90%. Using these statistics only considers the parent’s view it also does not specify what “mild”, means. These statistics are also only taken from a newspaper poll they are not government published results.
The newspaper uses celebrities like Esther Rantzen
and she says she regretted hitting her children because they did not get close to her she also says that her parents hit her and she rebelled against them and now she is a television presenter, so has smacking done her any harm. The paper also quotes Peter Dawson from the professional association of teachers who says his daughters were “grateful”, for him smacking them. He also says, “if a small child is crawling towards the fire you should give them a good smack”, which is a common sense example. “Good smack”, suggests the seriousness of the situation, but it does not specify what a “GOOD smack,” is . This comment is strategically placed at the end of the article so it is the bit you go away and remember and who could argue with a comment like that? The paper also uses a quote from the NSPCC who are experts on children and they believe that smacking can “easily escalate into violent abuse,” but I feel that they have made it a subjective matter because it is not an actual fact. The paper also tries to make the article balanced by asking teachers what they think and they say it is “nonsense,” to say that smacking can easily lead to violent abuse. This would reassure readers because teachers spend a lot of time with children often more time than parents and they are an authority figure so they should know what they are talking about. A pressure group called family and youth concern say it is “just another attack on parental rights.” Which could mean that parents have a right to hit their children. The paper also describes a leaflet, which says there are “new ways of encouraging,” parents to stop hitting their children but the wording is weak and suggests that the problem is minor. The newspaper quotes Penelope Leach who is against smacking and she asks parents not to smack their children for a week and then you will see the difference.
