The opening paragraph of the first article has no adjectives. This gives a dull and boring atmosphere with no action. The sense of no action is reinforced all the way through the first paragraph when it reads “…effect of the miners dispute”. The word “dispute” suggests a non-violent situation but a small, significant argument. Later on in the passage it says, “3000 miners converged…” The word “converged” suggests that the miners turned up. It could have read, “3000 miners swarmed”, but they have taken again a non-violent approach. Although it is not violent or aggressive it is very powerful backed up with 3000 miners. The opening paragraph of the second article begins with, “The military style operation…” This straight away implies vicious aggression and again a military approach. It is a big contrast to the first article and shows the bias. It goes on to say “…in the quiet market town of Selby…” this does not really fit in with the rest of the text as most of it is talking about violence. The one word, “quiet”, has a big impact because it is very contradicting. The next quote is, “4000 strikers…” This surely is an exaggeration and the word “…strikers…” is used. This again is violent as it is saying strikers not miners. It is as if the word is implying violence such as striking or hitting something. Then it goes on to say, “It left Police helpless…” this implies that the police had no chance of stopping or restraining the miners. It also suggests that the police were completely outnumbered by the rebellious miners. There is a big contrast here as the first article says, “avoided police efforts”, and the other is saying, “It left police helpless”. The first article implies the police could not catch them because the miners avoided them and the other suggests that the police had no chance at all and were completely outnumbered.
The third paragraph of the first article begins with, “Miners later temporarily blockaded the main toll bridge into Selby”. It suggests that the Miners only blockaded it to cause frustration and annoyance. Not to keep the blockade there and cause trouble not only with residents but with the police too. The word “later” is also used. This suggests that it is not very important. If it was important they probably would have said “Then the miners temporarily…” It goes on to say, “Their peaceful protest…” this may not be so true. Further on in the article it describes the overturning of a van. This is not very peaceful. This is quite contradictive and a big contrast to the second article. The second article quotes, “It was dawn when nearly 600 miners took over the narrow Selby toll bridge on the A19”. There is a contrast between the orders of events. The first article says that it was “later” and the second says it was “dawn” when the bridge into Selby was blockaded. The second article also does not imply that the bridge incident was temporary. This is saying that the miners very purposefully blockaded the bridge and wanted to cause trouble and aggression. When it reads “ …took over…” it is very powerful and almost like the miners are besieging Selby. The title also states this. It again also describes the police and how they had no chance when it quotes, “…trapping police who were already hopelessly outnumbered. This is sympathising for the police and almost saying that the miners are a savage rabble. It then goes on and says, “With the town now sealed off, more than 500 pickets rampaged…” This is implying a military operation and it is quite powerful in the way it is used. It also says that the miners rampaged through the streets. This again the article is making the miners sound like an aggressive rabble. They refer to them as pickets and not miners and this makes it sound dramatic and colourful. It carries on about how, “they terrified shop-keepers and housewives”. This again is dramatic and compared to the mundane passage of the first article it is aggressive as well. They also bring a woman’s point of view into it as they say “…and housewives…” This suggests violence all round and it implies that the miners were really terrorising the residents of Selby.
The next thing is the van that the miners overturned with some men inside. The first article quotes, “As they dispersed a group of miners spotted a rented van being used…” Here they use the word miners and it makes it sound normal and not aggressive but a few lines later it says, “According to local residents, men surrounded the van and began banging on the side.” It uses men not miners and this is a very general and vague comment, which is trying to avoid the point being made. It also says, “According to local residents…” This means it is second hand information, which may not be true. There are no adjectives in the paragraph, which again makes it boring and mundane. After it says, “…men surrounded the van…” it goes on to say, “…and began banging on the side”. This is not very violent and is disguising and hiding the fact that they were being aggressive. The last sentence quotes, “They overturned it with the men inside.” This is very blunt and not at all descriptive. It doesn’t go on to explain what happened. The other thing noticeable is that this statement is made right at the end of the article. Maybe it is possible that the writer hoped that the end part would not be read thoroughly or even at all. This is again to disguise the fact that at this point the miners were being violent and destructive. The second article says, “The five men inside faced 30 minutes of terror before police were able to come to their rescue”. This is describing what happened and emphasising it so it stands out and is noticed. It is very precise and it may well be an exaggeration. At the end of the sentence it says, “…before police were able to come to their rescue”. The word “help” could have been used instead of “…rescue”. This implies another military approach. The last line of this article is, “But police said: “This was just another attempt at mob-rule.”” This implies that the miners were trying to rule and take over Selby to make the government give in.
The two articles are very contrasting and biased. The first article is in support of the miners and trying to put the things the miners did in a very boring and undisruptive way. It is very prosaic and understated. The other is against the miners and trying to dramatise and exaggerate everything they did. This means that the first article is left wing, with the miners, and the second is right wing, against them. There is also something to say about the structure of the articles. The second has shorter paragraphs and each of them seems to have a small climax before moving onto the next point or paragraph. The structure of the first article is monotonous and mundane. They both also use figures to back up their points, although the second article uses this tactic more than the other. For example one line in the article reads, “…involved 4000 strikers”. They use this tactic to make the government look sympathised and to make it sound as though the miner’s are a rebellious and unorganised group who want to prove the government wrong.
