The Guardians headline uses emotive language. The headline reads: The toppling of Saddam- an end to thirty years of brutal rule. This is very emotive language; the word brutal needn’t have even been used, but to exaggerate what was happening the word was put in there. On the front page, half of it is writing and the other half is a picture. The picture is clearly the same picture that was in The Sun, but this picture that has been used, is from a different angle, and shows a soldier watching on as the statue is pulled down. I think the picture in the Sun was more powerful as the statue is made to look bigger, however, the picture in the Guardian shows more emotion, with the soldier watching on as everything he has worked for is accomplished and this is the beginning of the end for Saddam. The picture in the Guardian also shows a lot of people in the background looking on astonished that the statue has fallen. In the article that is on the front page of the Guardian there are long complex sentences and quite long paragraphs. There also is quite a lot of swearing in the article. I think this might be because the audience is a lot more mature than the audience of the Sun.
The two papers approach the reports a different way. The Sun has a picture, that shows everyone what they want to see, and the Guardian has a complete article on the front page. The two papers are meant for different audiences, I think so they have a different approach. The Sun gets straight to the point, but the one thing that it shows on the front cover is enough to make people buy the paper to see what the paper actually has to say. The picture is simple to look at, where as the Guardian’s view of the picture has more things to look at, like the soldier and the statue and the people.
The Sun uses a bigger view of the picture, as they use the same picture, and the Guardian has a different view of the same picture. The Suns message does get to the readers more easily than the Guardians. When I first looked at the Sun, the message was simple, ‘the statue had fallen over, it was the end for Saddam’s rule.’ But when I first looked at the Guardian, the message was a lot harder to work out, and I had to study it for longer to see what was actually happening in the picture. Also the Guardian has a more formal approach. The Sun hits the readers in a way; it uses more emotion in my opinion. The Guardian wants people to think about it and it is not as exaggerated as the Sun.
The Sun has a lot bigger audience than the Guardian. The Guardians audience tends to be more middle class, whereas the Suns audience is more working class, and as there are more working class the Sun is a lot more popular than the Guardian. The Sun is statistically the biggest selling paper in the country; as its audience is much wider than the Guardian. For example, the Sun has a sports section every day, and a pull out every Monday and Saturday. The Guardian does not have a sports section. This could be because football and rugby are more working class sports, so the working class are going to be more interested in sports. The Guardian is generally for more intelligent people than the Sun. I can tell this because of the language. The Guardian uses swear words in its articles, but the Sun edits them out. I think this is because the Guardian has a much more mature audience than the Sun, they are less likely to make a fuss, and children are less likely to pick up the Guardian than the Sun. Also, the Sun has younger readers, and doesn’t want to offend anybody by printing these words.
