Analysis of a Boxing Article

827 Words4 Pages
Analysis of a Boxing Article

The headline does what headlines do. It grabs the readers attention,

and suggest what we expect to find when we read on. “NO ONE IS FORECED

TO FIGHT” is a sharp phrase that goes straight to the point. The bias

of the editorial is clear from the headline, and we expect to read

something in favor of the boxers right to box, especially since they

are not “FORCED”. As expected it is told with all the letters in

capital. In fact, the headline rolls of the tongue easily, and this is

mainly because of the alliteration of “FORCED TO FIGHT”, and the soft

vowel sounds of the letter ‘O’. Also the rhythm of the headline is

snappy, because all the words are single syllable words, again

something that is common in headlines.

The content is written in a very clear and simple from, this technique

gives off an effect making the reader want to read on and find out

what the editorial is about. Immediately the text started with “Ban

Boxing! It’s too dangerous” this is exaggerated. Facts about other

dangerous sports are also mentioned, this is to backup boxing. E.g.

“how many jockeys are seriously injured falling off horses?” and “how

many rugby players are paralyzed with broken necks?” Rhetorical are

also used near the end of the content. E.g. “But there was no clamour

to ban motor racing after Ayrton Senna died” and “Why should boxing be

banned when all those other sports continue?” These questions give-off

a dramatic feel to the content and makes the reader reflect on what

has been said.

Most of the sentences of the editorial are short, sharp and simple.

The sentences aren’t very detailed but provide enough informat...

... middle of paper ...

... the

editorial, this phrase is talking about those rich men who are greedy

and only care for them self. Raged is a powerful word used in the

text, it gives of sense anger, and makes the content more dramatic.

Most of the words used aren’t very complicated which prevents the

off-putting feeling.

Even after reading the whole editorial it is still very difficult to

tell which side of the debate it biased towards. It shows many point

for and against boxing. ‘Boxing is a multi-million pound business’,

‘sports promoters make millions’, ‘ chance of achieving a better

life’, ‘boxers are little more than dogs’, ‘beat each other to a

pulp’.

In conclusion of reading this article, I believe that although

something should be done about the deaths that boxing brings, the

decision to box then die or to live is the boxers.
Open Document