The tone of both articles is rather personal because in 'Beggars Of Britain´ Tony Parsons uses much
offensive personal writing, while John Pilger writes about his personal story.
Both articles are emotional in more ways then one. Pilger is emotional in the way he talks about his friendship with the homeless man. Parsons on the other hand hurls abuse at the way beggars get their money and how they appeal to most peoples sympathetic side.
"…And gypsy beggars who try to stuff a ratty flower into your buttonhole with some sentimental line - 'for the children coos some obese hag"
Pilger talks about making a friendship with this homeless man. Parsons shows his personal view on
the matter of beggars.
Parsons´ article is colloquial because he seems to be talking directly to you with streetwise
language.
"….hey-you-guys-let´s-catch-crabs"
Pilger is somewhat more formal in his approach.
"I have seen him nodding as if he is in silent discussion with himself"
Both articles are written in first person. Both articles are addressed directly to the reader.
This creates an individual effect, as if the writer is writing directly to you. This makes you be more
involved in the article, rather the normal news, report the facts and don´t report emotionally.
Parson´s article is written from the writer´s point of view you either agree, or disagree. While Pilger talks about his friendship with a homeless man.
Parsons´ article was published in 'Arena´, a magazine aimed at a younger audience and it shows the whole structure and language is different. Most young people have short attention spans but in Parsons´ his article brings up the subject of beggars straight away, with strong obscene language making people read the article.
"…been happier for us to sleep in a shoebox full of shit"
This is effective for young people with short attention spans. As I said earlier in the essay 'Arena´ is aimed at the younger generation.
Pilger´s article was published in 'New Statesmen´ a magazine aimed at middle and upper classes. Pilger writes a touching story of a build up of a relationship with a homeless man, 'The Man With No Name´. Pilger builds up his article with a story and telling the reader the facts. The reader learns about the plight of the homeless people while telling the story of a typical homeless man.
"My friend is typical in that he bears the familiar scars of the homelessness"
The article is aimed at the more mature reader, who would be touched by Pilger´s generous nature, and the predicament of the homeless man. So this is perfectly in place in the 'New Statesmen´ mature readers to read a mature article.
Both articles use Standard English. I regard "Beggars of Britain" use of English really standard. While "The Man With No Name" is high Standard English. With but a few complicating words for a teenage reader.
"such as a furtiveness"
"sporadic, shallow joviality"
Some of these words are considerably complex for an immature reader.
The target audience for both publications is perfectly suited in their respective magazines. Parsons writes for a younger audience and writes just how the younger audiences like it. While Pilger writes for a matured audience and the audience like the way it is written.
Both article style and structure are catered for different audiences.
Pilger´s article oozes aged style for "New Statesmen" audience. His story was a touching emotional parable, a parable which makes the reader think differently about the subject of homelessness.
Parsons´ article has a different type of style a more risqué style; the younger audience may start to show malevolence towards beggars the same type that Parsons´ shares.
"These people disgusted me"
Both journalists are highly literate, but I think Parsons´ article does not do him justice. I imagine that Parsons´ article was not written for it high literacy level, but written by Parsons´ passion. His hatred of beggars dictated this article.
Pilger´s article was delicately written and written excellently. The story was written with the right balance of everything fifty- percent story and fifty- percent facts.
"He had his usual tweed jacket and was leaning against the hedge"
This extract from Pilger´s article is a story paragraph.
"With maximum publicity, the government allocated three hundred million for 'rough sleepers´"
This extract from Pilger´s article is a fact paragraph.
Parsons´ article is mostly abuse towards beggars, although he does feel genuine sympathy towards the real beggars.
"In Africa you see beggars with deformed legs crawling, literally crawling"
"Begging defaces the city, degrades the spirit"
Parsons´ article is mostly just his private opinion on beggars rather then a serious article.
Both articles were written in ninety ninety-one. Both and articles were respectively published in 'Arena´ and 'New Statesman´. The conservative government was in power at the time, and Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. Both writers were against the conservative government, and blamed the government for homelessness and begging.
"Thatcher government stopped council spending on housing more then ten years ago."
"Liberals blame the fall of the begging taboo on the let-the-bloody-orphans-take-care-of-themselves ethics of Thatcherism"
These articles are still relevant to the year two thousand because both problems are still around. Begging has made a lot of headlines quite recently because there has been quite a few people who have been falsely begging, when they can easily live a prosperous life and have been accused of preying on the British people´s generosity
