A Comparison of newspaper articles- four editorials Essay

Newspapers have farsighted been a mean of talk between the general public and the world. They usually state facts and opinions about an grand event that has taken place in the world, which would be of interest. This word of honor move range from political views to showbiz to world affairs. One thing that we do non do when we read a tidingspaper is to count on for unrivaled insurgent that what we argon reading is that exactly how it happened. Newspapers ar use as a medium for propaganda.Propaganda is utilise frequently in everyday life to control out thoughts and despite what the majority of us think it does affect our opinions. Its a proven fact that newsprints argon more propaganda than facts as the news are twisted around to support the journalists accept political views. So in a way all news that we read is non as we interpret it to be because journalists would scarcely draw up what they feel is right and all of us have different opinions.thither are two main typ es of newspapers, Broadsheets like The Guardian and Tabloids like The Mirror. Tabloids are the most popular type of paper they are often small in size, more colourful and use stimulating images to target a certain age range such as teenagers. They use wide-eyed words so they are the most widely read newspapers in the world. On the other hap Broadsheets are generally larger in size, more serious and less colourful. They are mostly concerned with current affairs, political issues and people opinions about the g overnment.They are targeted for a specific audience, which baron be people who are twisting in the fields of occupation that are mentioned in the newspaper, or it could just be ordinary people. This analyze result explore different types of newspapers and their effects on the general public. I will be doing this by comparing four newspaper newspaper columns from The lie Daily Star The Guardian and The socialist worker. All four pillars wrap up on the same thing, which is a fight between Nigel Benn and Gerald McClellan where at the reverse McClellan was left on a life support machine.I will be facial expressioning if the editorials are bias and are they for or against slugfest being banned in the UK and how effective their techniques are. In the first-class honours degree editorial by The Sun No one is forced to fight is a tabloid, the headline is very big and unmingled as is for the second editorial by The Daily Star, which is also a tabloid, called They knew the risks. It catches the readers attention unbowed away even at a contemplate. The first editorial by the Sun has two verbs in its headline.The word No one is a pronoun that indicates/refers to people in general so by evidenceing this the reader will be curious to find out as to what it stands for therefore they will be enticed to read the phrase. The second obligate is similar to the first in the sense that the pro-noun They is quite general, in order to cause the to lo ok at the member in more detail or charge interest. The third editorial by The Guardian One pummelling too some(prenominal) is a broadsheet and already you sight spot the difference with the headline. It is not bold or italic it is just normal writing.The word Pummelling is not frequently used by the masses, which would most probably capture a target audience. The fourth headline by The Socialist worker box bosses count the cash is also a tabloid. Unlike the other phrases it gives us a clearer picture of what the article is about because it is the only one that mentions the adverb packing material The Sun, Daily Star, and the socialist worker, context are less detail, they have short-circuit simple facts about the fight and so therefore is aimed at a very broad audience.The first article starts of with a fact merely the writer then goes on to express his own views and therefore it is chiefly opinions. For example why should pugilism be banned when all those sports pass o ver? and words such as brutal and cruel are used to describe the event, which affects the readers emotions, making an incident where blood was involved come to their minds. On the other hand The Guardian newspaper provides a lot more detail with noneffervescents. For example Britains boxing rules have been tightened for over 300 years since the first bare knuckle fight was recorded.The Guardian has used longer sentence construction in comparison to the other newspapers, the words are generally long and more than three syllables long for example words such as neurological are used, which is quite typical of a broadsheet newspaper as it has so much facts and uses complex vocabulary that it is only served for the necessitate of intellectual people. All the other newspapers are tabloids so they have used short sentence structure and short words for example is article two the longest word is endeavour where as that would probably be the longest in a broadsheet.The linguistic struct ure of the sun/ day by day star and the choice of words are more dramatic and whizz than the Guardian, for example The Sun Ban boxing Its too mordacious Can cause serious damage to the brain . The fear of wounding or even death Of course it is brutal and cruel few of us would dare try it The Daily Star The fight was ferocious, brutal, bloody The end was tragic . Plunge him to purgatory Everyone who watched this fight will never pass on it The socialist worker is more concerned with human values than with packing itself.It is actually telling us how people have power over others and how they use and exploit them to such an extent that it leaves them paralysed. For example to them managers boxers are little more than dogs only than it goes on to give the writers own thoughts only if those in the ring are prepared to risk their lives because they see it as their only chance of achieving a better life. The first article does not follow a balanced argument and is prepossess, w hat it does is it makes the reader think by using retheriotical questions.For example how many jockeys are seriously injured move of horses? How many rugby players are paralysed with broken necks? Why should boxing be banned when all those sports continue? it lets you come to your own conclusion but then straight after that it says, You cannot nanny people, however tragic the consequences of their actions energy be. Which then makes the reader completely lose track of what he was thought process and accept that what is written is true. This article is against Boxing being banned.The second article is clearly biased and in favour of boxing. If you take one glance at it you will notice that straight away in bold it says, they are grown men free to make their own decision. This article does not let the reader have any thought it is perpetually trying to stimulate the readers mind into believing that to box is not a crime. In its last sentence it seems like the source extremi tys people to be involved in committing acts of violence dont let the do-goodders flow an heroic battle. The third article is by the Guardian and is also biased and as you would of expected it to be it has used a lot of statics and facts to persuade their audience that boxing should be banned. The fourth article appears biased that it inclines towards the winner because it is only the winner that counts the cash. On the other hand one could say that the bosses are yearning for their boxers to win so that they can get the money. This article is more about how the society is protract than boxing itself because it says boxing is a multi-million pound business but its not the only sport where you can make a million pound.This author wants the class-dive system changed as he clearly outlines it in his last sentences The sincere question is not whether boxing should be banned but whether we can rid of the system which creates it. Coming to a conclusion I would say that the best newspa per which is more likely to make people think is The Socialist Worker as it would than be a need for one to understand the importance of society and how our we exploit it. After that has been done, than, you could start idea about different other issues.My own opinion is that boxing should not be banned even after knowing the tragic consequences. I think that if you were to ban boxing there would a lot of turmoil and protests so therefore the best way of preventing that is to allow boxing. If people are sane they will know the consequences of boxing and yet if they still want to continue we cannot stop them they have free will but they were warned. So if you allow boxing this way the decision is theirs (boxers) not anyone elses and only they can be blamed for their actions.