One story that did stick out and was covered in 3 out of the 4 papers was about the confirmed plans to go ahead and build a new nuclear power station in somerset. This may be the chosen story that is researched fully, however even if it isn't it has been useful to compare how the 3 papers write about and present the story to the readers. Below are some written observations about each papers methods of reporting: The Times
The Times features the story on page 8 of the newspaper, it fills just over half one page with two columns of text a long photograph and a final column of relevant Q&A's. The title "No guarantee of nuclear jobs for British workers" stands out and already portrays that the newspaper has a negative vibe towards the proposal. The article starts by slating the government (rightly so) mainly Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, for making high aspirations into guarantees. The 16 billion nuclear deal was promising to offer jobs and cheaper electricity to people of England, it has now come out that this might not be the case. Overall reading The Times' report on the nuclear power station they seem to balance out both arguments quite well by looking at each point of view. However there is a cloud of scepticism that appears to affect it as a whole. The good thing about this story is there are so many different points of interest to different people. For example you could want to focus on the nuclear energy itself, its harm on the environment, the way the government have hyped it up or even lied to us. The focus for the Times is looking at the lack of jobs that would be available, Cameron promised 25,000 but the DECC has contradicted him saying the most number of jobs at one time would be 5,600 and even lower when the plant became functional.
The Independent The Independent features their story on page 4 and opens it with a large picture of David Cameron surrounded by employees at Hinkley Point. The photo they have chosen plays well into the idea that he is a 'good guy' doing his best to help people. He is shown at the same height as them , unlike the other papers where is is stood on a stage talking at them, this implies that he's at their level - all equal. Another thing that stands out is his eye contact, he is looking at one employee sympathetically with a look like he really does care about their futures. This paired with the title "new nuclear power deal 'essential if Britain is to keep the lights on'" really implies that the paper are bias towards David Cameron or Nuclear power. One point thats worth noting is how the article has left out facts and figures about the amount of people that would actually be employed, this fits in with the theme of the whole article supporting Cameron. They list quite a few points to why we HAVE to have nuclear power and write it from the side that the government are putting themselves out for us so we can live better. On the bottom of the page they have created a mini article with figures to the expenses of Hinkley compared to other energy sources, its not suprising that Hinkley is the cheapest. For an Independent newspaper it seems to be very one sided. It doesn't weigh up the negatives and shows the story in a kinder light than the other papers do. The Sun
The Sun reports the story on page 8 and 9 of the paper, however the double page spread is mainly taken over by a large image of David Cameron giving a speech. The Sun are very against David Cameron and portray him as incompetent the first paragraph in bold shows this well "The UK's first new nuclear plant for a generation got the go-ahead yesterday after years of dithering which The Sun can reveal has cost taxpayers BILLIONS" The word dithering implies that he's a bit airy fairy and not too sure what he's doing the use of capitals and bold for the word billions makes the reader feel angry that their money has been spent before anything has actually been decided. Everything good that has been written about the new nuclear plant has been put in quotations almost to say its not real. Although The Sun has not written a lot they have written about one fact that the two other newspapers have failed to mention. About the two nuclear plants in France and Finland which are a few steps in front of us when it comes to building a new plant. They are both struggling "they have been plaugued by technical problems, meaning they are years behind schedule and eyewateringly over budget." Overall the difference in the way each newspaper reports has been interesting because not only have they all revealed different information which the others had failed to mention but it give a great insight into how they sit politically and what audience they are aiming at. The audience reflects the page layout and the ratio of picture to text. If this story is chosen as the research story there are many aspects which could be explored including nuclear energy itself and consequences, other types of energy, peoples reactions and also into parliament and how their decisions and how they act affects this. This story is definitely worth considering as a final.
The Independent features their story on page 4 and opens it with a large picture of David Cameron surrounded by employees at Hinkley Point. The photo they have chosen plays well into the idea that he is a 'good guy' doing his best to help people. He is shown at the same height as them , unlike the other papers where is is stood on a stage talking at them, this implies that he's at their level - all equal. Another thing that stands out is his eye contact, he is looking at one employee sympathetically with a look like he really does care about their futures. This paired with the title "new nuclear power deal 'essential if Britain is to keep the lights on'" really implies that the paper are bias towards David Cameron or Nuclear power. One point thats worth noting is how the article has left out facts and figures about the amount of people that would actually be employed, this fits in with the theme of the whole article supporting Cameron. They list quite a few points to why we HAVE to have nuclear power and write it from the side that the government are putting themselves out for us so we can live better. On the bottom of the page they have created a mini article with figures to the expenses of Hinkley compared to other energy sources, its not suprising that Hinkley is the cheapest. For an Independent newspaper it seems to be very one sided. It doesn't weigh up the negatives and shows the story in a kinder light than the other papers do.
No comments:
Post a Comment