Immigration rose to 330,000 migrants arriving into the UK in one year. Of course, the story made big news headlines and many newspapers, websites and politicians took an opportunity to discuss the new statistics.
Read the following three articles focusing on the news:
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34071492 (BBC news online)
- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/27/net-migration-predicted-to-hit-record-level (The Guardian newspaper online)
- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3212572/Net-immigration-smashes-previous-record-hit-330-000-Cameron-s-pledge-cap-numbers-arriving-left-tatters.html (Daily Mail newspaper online)
Consider the different writers of the articles - you may want to use the internet or ask teachers/parents to gain an idea of what these news outlets general political learning is and what their stance on immigration might be.
Do you think the outlets' political stance affects their handling of the figures?
Do they portray the news in a positive, negative or neutral light?
Compare the language used in the different articles - is it trying to persuade the reader to think about the figures in a certain way?
Are any of the articles unfair? Do they encourage anti-immigrant sentiments in the UK?
Challenge: use the internet to find another news story on a similar topic - new figures are often released! Who is the author? How is their view portrayed? Is it biased?
1 I believe that the depending on who has wrote the report has changed the what the figures are and how known they are in the report
ReplyDelete2 Throughout all of the reports they show the news in a bad way because they only show the figures that are bad and show immigrates are bad and that they don't give back to the country
3 In the BBC report the language says about the Figures for the most of it. But in the Guardian there is much more said about the different figures that have been found out, this is the same as the Mail as well.
4 All these reports show the immigrates in a bad way because they never say any of the good thing that the immigrates give back to the country. Also i have found that the media as a whole show that all immigrates are bad and only take and not give to the country.
(To anyone who wishes to find out what sort of political views/agenda each news outlet has, mediabiasfactcheck.com is very useful as you can search any well-known news outlet on there and it says which views each outlet are based on.)
ReplyDelete1) I think that depending on who has wrote the article will definitely affect their stance on how to handle the data and statistics as if the newspaper a likens to a certain political party e.g. the daily mail is more conservative than anything else they may paint the statistics of more immigrants than usual as horrific and a very serious problem in Britain whereas the guardian or BBC would paint a more reasonable and 2 sided argument as to why the new immigration levels can be good or bad or both for Britain and people in Britain. So yes the political stance of the news-source/ newspaper article will change their handling of the sources.
ReplyDelete2) The BBC will paint an equal view on what immigration will so they will paint a positive and negative light on the situation. Creating a 50/50 view on the situation happening with immigration statistics in the United Kingdom. Therefore, painting it in a neutral light as they show the Pros and cons of immigrants. The daily mail will paint a very negative picture saying it's very bad that there are immigrants coming into the country at an all new high in these statistics. As they are a central/far right political newspaper so their opinion will be more bias and unfair towards immigrants. The guardian will paint a more left wing idea saying there are negatives but mainly positives due to the fact that there's a new higher level of immigration, however they may still say it's bad as it can bring problems as some of the immigrants may come here and claim benefits but 95% of newly arrived immigrants don't claim benefits.
3) In the daily mail it's very persuasive as it tries to tell you to realise that the new immigration statistics are bad and could cause serious problems such as the fact that they could "take jobs" or they might just come here to "claim benefits" which is trying to persuade the reader that the immigrants are bad. When in actual reality barely any of them claim benefits and they all take the lower paying jobs, boosting GDP. Whereas in the guardian and BBC it shows a more normal way of explaining that what's happening is shocking but it doesn't matter massively. Also they aren't trying to persuade the reader they're trying to convey an opinion and point about what they think about immigration.
4) I think the daily mail is unfair as it creates an anti- immigrant view on what immigrants are actually like and makes it seem as if they come to England steal jobs and take benefits. When in reality they barely seek benefits and take the lower paid jobs which most Britons aren't willing to have as of "reputation" and look of their own personal image. The guardian shows a sort of 50/50 view on immigration as it paints it as a sort of thing where there are pros and cons of the new statistics of immigration. So that shows that their view on the situation is not so anti-immigrant as compared to the daily mail or other news outlets. Also the BBC has quite a middle view where they aren't anti-immigrant but they don't fully support the new immigration statistics as it is wrong the politicians can't keep their word for trying to sort out the immigration problem currently in Britain. But they still agree that immigrants in Britain isn't all bad as they do help the economy
1) I think that depends on the author but the daily mail has a further right viewpoint than both the guardian and the BBC and I think this is demonstrated by the use of figures which focus on portraying that immigration is increasingly rapidly.
ReplyDelete2) I think in some sense both the guardian and the daily mail’s articles are painting the news in a negative light. Both articles could be trying to say that the news needs to be more open about immigration but in contrasting ways.
3) They all focus on the statistics; this all
allows the articles to be understood easier. However, with the statistics daily mail uses amplified adjectives to influence readers to see immigration in a negative viewpoint.
4)I think the Guardian’s article is slightly subjective towards immigration but in general it is fair. The BBC’s article I think is the most objective and fair. However, I think the Daily Mail’s is unfair, I think it is encouraging anti-immigrant sentiments in the UK
1) I think that a newspapers political stance affects the handling of these figures as different outlets place the blame on different people. For example, the BBC which is a left-centre outlet portrays the conservatives as the cause of this issue calling David Cameron a "political embarrassment" and "morally wrong", this shows that they do not like the conservatives and will pass this negative view onto the reader. Whereas, the Daily Mail that has a right bias blames Labour saying that population has "'rose sharply after 1997' when New Labour was elected.". Again this portrays the opposing party as the problem.
ReplyDelete2) The Daily Mail uses statistics on the proportion of immigrants in the UK to scare the reader into thinking there are too many, and not informing them of the good and help they could bring. For example, "A QUARTER of babies born in Britain last year were to foreign mothers", this would reinforce the ideology that some British people have that there are too many immigrants. This links to the idea that the Daily Mail has a right bias as that same idea is held by members of the conservative party. Whereas, the BBC does demonstrate the benefits immigrants can have on the country, illustrating that the largest amount of immigrants entering the UK in 2015 arrived for work, showing the benefits to the economy, and the Guardian saying "two-thirds of those already had a job to come to.", presenting them in a more positive light.
3) The Daily Mail continually uses the word "soared" when referring to the immigration statistics throughout the article. This creates an image of the number of immigrants being really immense, this would scare many British people that hold the idea that immigrants should not be allowed into the country, and cause this idea to be reinforced as well as possibly causing new people to hold this idea. Whereas, the Guardian tries to convey the idea that immigrants are not the ones responsible for many issues that concern British citizens, like unemployment. For example, "Labour market figures show that foreign nationals accounted for 75% of the growth of 342,000 in employment", this clearly shows that they are trying to demonstrate the good that immigrants can do, but the Daily Mail don't show any of these figures, emphasising how they want to scare the public.
4) The Daily Mail shows a clear anti-immigrant opinion. It only focuses on the increase of immigrants, and how there is a larger proportion on non-British citizens now, and not including key details about how these people come to look for work, and how that will help the British economy in the long term, like the BBC and The Guardian do. It instigates a sense of fear into the British public that there are too many people for the country to cope, which in turn is anti-immigrant. This can be seen here "Current flows of people across Europe are on a scale we haven't seen since the end of the Second World War. This is not sustainable and risks the future economic development of other EU member states. It reinforces the need for further reform at an EU level as well as within the UK.”
1) Yes, to an extent. A certain media outlet would use figures that best backed up their viewpoint as you'd expect. Words used when labelling and describing the figures are also chosen specifically to try and evoke a certain response and impression in the reader's mind. Nevertheless, facts are facts, and there is only a certain extent to which they can be manipulated as they must be true.
ReplyDelete2) All seem to really present this in a less positive way, but to different extents. The daily mail article obviously will portray this in a more negative view as its views are more right wing. However, even from left wing sources like the BBC and the Guardian the statistics are presented as something to be aware of and at the very least something that has an impact on the UK.
3) The daily mail tends to be a media source that uses certain verbs and adjectives in order to portray the figures in certain ways. The writer of it also even goes as far as using capital letters to put emphasis on certain words. The guardian however makes the point of British businesses apparently being "Over-reliant" on foreign workers. This may be done to make the reader feel more positive about immigration into the UK.
4) I wouldn't say any are unfair, but it must be said that these articles that are published are more than just news and more than just information on the situation, they are people trying to make the reader feel a certain way about the issue. Particularly the daily mail is doing this by using certain words to try and change the viewpoint of the reader. But despite this, the facts used are real facts and are not fake, which means that the article is fair, it is just biased. The same can be said for many other news outlets too.