How is the response of the audience manipulated in Peter Medak's film 'Let him have it!' and 'The Daily Mail' article of November 1952? Do they both show bias? In November 1952 a policeman was shot dead and another left wounded

Authors Avatar

Media Coursework

English

How is the response of the audience manipulated in Peter Medak’s film ‘Let him have it!’ and ‘The Daily Mail’ article of November 1952?  Do they both show bias?

In November 1952 a policeman was shot dead and another left wounded in what the Daily Mail called a ‘gun battle’ when Christopher Craig and Derek Bentley broke into the Barlow and Parker warehouse in Croydon.  I have looked at two media sources of information regarding this event.  A newspaper article taken from the Daily Mail 3rd November 1952 and Peter Medak’s film ‘Let him have it!’.  Using these sources I intend to illustrate how they manipulate the audience and if they are biased types of media.

The headline for the Daily Mail’s article regarding the events of the night 2nd November 1952, state that ‘Gangsters with machine guns on roof kill detective, wound another’.  However only two people, Christopher Craig and Derek Bentley, were on the roof.  Neither of them armed with a machine gun.  The article consistently describes the pair as ‘the raiders’ ‘the bandits’ or ‘the gangsters’.  This approach suggests that there were more than two people, although it never actually says how many.  This is using hyperbole, a deliberate exaggeration in language for a more dramatic effect.  ‘Gangsters’ sounds more threatening and gives a more serious and dangerous impression of the situation.

The article leads people to believe that the ‘the gangsters’ were armed.  Although Christopher Craig was carrying a gun, it wasn’t a machine gun like the article states it was but a Firearm and Derek Bentley didn’t carry a gun but a knuckle-duster which was unused.  Craig began shooting randomly when he realised he was surrounded but only to scare off the police.  What it evolved into wasn’t a ‘second battle of Sidney Street’ as the Daily Mail claims because Craig was the only one shooting, until a police officer fired three warning shots into the air.

Leaving out bits of information such as how Craig jumped from the building after shooting the police officer stops people from feeling sorry for ‘the bandits’ and making up excuses for them like saying that if he jumped he can’t have meant it.

By writing about ‘the gangsters’ as if they were shooting at everyone and not just to scare the police away, the media have created an interesting story that people will want to read and find out how the case progresses and what verdict it will get in court, which is the effect that they would have anticipated.

The opening paragraph that declares that the ‘London crime wave reached a new peak’ the night of 2nd November 1952 is someone’s opinion presented as a fact, as is the shootings on the roof being associated with the ‘Battle of Sidney Street’.  These are presented as facts so that people read them as facts and believe them, whatever their own individual opinion is.  Opinions will be argued with because they are just someone’s point of view whereas facts are solid, believable piece of information, which reinforce the importance of a situation.

Join now!

The article has words that play on peoples emotions that intend to touch its readers’ hearts making them feel sadness towards the dead policeman’s family and the other officers involved but also to increase hatred and anger towards ‘the gangsters’.  The policeman being ‘shot dead’ is quite blunt and sounds harsher than if it had just been phased as “shot”.  It shocks the reader more because the language isn’t soft and kind but contains hatred which proposed for Craig and Bentley.  The fact that ‘a married man with two children with 12 years of service’ was killed should instantly ...

This is a preview of the whole essay