Comparison of Two Newspaper Articles

Comparison of Two Newspaper Articles

These two articles are about asylum seekers. Both articles agree that

there are too many asylum seekers, but are presented in a very

different way to each other. Article one is a shorter more aggressive

tract, not intended to make the reader think about the article but

just to instantly agree with it. Article two however stands back and

looks at the problem, why it has arisen and suggests ways that there

can be resolutions. Both papers also criticise the government for

being too lenient, and for not taking any action. Both identify David

Blunkett, naming the government's minister responsible for this area

of policy, an important factual ingredient. The two newspapers also

criticise the bogus asylum seekers who come here to live off handouts

from the state and not even try to get a job.

The styles of argument used by the two writers are completely

different. Article one is written to get through to some of the less

intellectual people who will most probably take the writer's side

before looking at arguments. Article two is directed towards a more

open minded individual who would rather be reasonable and look at the

problems involved before drawing conclusions and making up his mind

where he stands. We can see this very easily by comparing two small

statements. In article one, the writer calls people who defend all

asylum seekers 'politically correct buffoons', implying that these

people do not know anything and are stupid. The writer of article two,

however takes a less aggressive approach and describes these people as

'liberally minded folk who have probably never had experience of

asylum see...

... middle of paper ...

... the headline makes

it look interesting.

I think that article two is far more successful because after I read

it I came away with an impression that, yes there are too many asylum

seekers and yes the government has made a huge meal of it, but I also

understand the plight of these refugees and sometimes they can get

quite poor treatment. I also now have a view on what can be done to

solve the problem. Before reading this article my stance was very

similar to the one taken by the writer of article one.

Because I read article one first I started by agreeing with it and I

did connect and the words had quite a big impact upon me. But this did

not last as I soon read the second article. However if someone e was

just to read this I believe that it could be very successful in making

them see the writer's point of view.