The writer of the Independent has made positive comments, for example he has written “it is more of a relaxed atmosphere. We seem to learn because there are more resources” and comments similar to that mainly towards the end of the article, this is because the readers usually remember the last bits of an article they read. In The Daily Mirror the writer keeps on repeating words for example he has started 3 paragraphs with the same starting, which makes it clear that the writer is not professional and its gives a negative impact.
The language used in The Daily Mirror is sarcastic, the writer sounds as if he doesn’t support the course, for example he has wrote “No marks for the teachers who go along with” and “No marks for parents who encourage their children”, this straight away gives a negative idea, and persuades parents not to send their children to the course, because it all seems as a joke. Whereas in the Independent the language is formal which will appeal more to the readers, and will also give a positive image of the course.
The title in the Independent represents the place the course is going to be and their aim, in this case Butlin’s aim to let ‘pupils play to learn’. Whereas The Daily Mirror’s title is not clear what the writer meant, so there is not much you can understand.
I do not think the two articles were written by professional writers, because there were lots of mistakes in both articles, for example the writer was using words like ‘tomfoolery’ which is the last thing you would want to write in a news article.
From these articles I can conclude that both articles are saying that pupils can learn while playing which will be fun.
Both of these papers show positive and negative comments, and are willing that pupils can learn while playing.
Balanced reporting is shown in the Independent because the writer did not want lots of negative comments, so he balanced it with positive comments. This is important because when the reader reads a negative comment, and then reads a positive comment, the positive comment stays in mind more.
There is bias shown in The Daily Mirror where it says “No marks at all for the local education authorities who waste public funds on such tom foolery”, etc, and this is bad because it indicates that the course is about messing about and not worth attending.
