Commentaire d articles de presse Continuous Assessment instructions

Commentaire d’ articles de presse Continuous Assessment instructions

Comparing two articles • Pick up two fairly recent newspaper articles dealing with the same topic. The articles may have been printed in the same paper or in a different one, depending on whether you want to study political biais or the evolution of the perception of an event for instance. e. g. By comparing an article on the credit crunch from the Daily Mail with one from the Economist you may explore the degree of language technicality and the way the journalist adapts his language to the paper’s readership. By comparing an op. ed. with a feature on student protest in the UK, you may underline the specificity of an editorial. Your articles must be printed versions, not online versions. Many magazines are available in the library.

Do make a comparison! • Do not separate the commentaries of the articles: the two articles must be dealt with in the same successive sections. • NOT : « I shall study first the way the facts are presented in the Guardian and then focus on the way facts are explained in The Economist. Then I will compare the two » . • BUT: « The readers are given more accurate figures in The Economist than in The Guardian, which shows that The Economist’s readers are more interested in technical details while the Guardian’s readers want a synthetic account » .

Writing the introduction The first article, entitled « Wasting money on climate change » was printed / published in the December 2010 issue of The Economist. This publication is a weekly targetting / aimed at well-educated readers / people interested in economic affairs / conversant with finance. Much of this paper is indeed devoted to finance, the Stock Exchange, and global economics. The readers won’t be surprised at finding such an article in the first pages of the paper. Other useful words: Readers well-versed in finance / in sports / in literature… A wide range of topics Topics ranging from political affairs to sports Readers from all walks of life Readers at the bottom end of the social spectrum Low vs. High income readers

Introduction… The lay-out can be telling: • The article issued in The Economist was mentioned on the cover / front page, which indicates its importance in the eyes of the editor while the article from The Guardian is featured in the last pages of the paper, which tends to prove that the staff considered the subject of lesser interest. • The subject is given far less importance in the second paper: the headline is printed in smaller fonts and the article is made up of 4 columns, compared to eight in The Economist. • The first article stretches over two full pages and is complemented by a set of color photographs whereas the second article is smaller in size and not illustrated.

Introduction … The headlines and subheadlines may be … Catchy- attention-grabbing – aluring – funny – clever – mysterious – provocative – unusual – hackneyed… They may be based on puns, or may be a blend / a combination of two phrases; they may allude to a saying or hide a cultural reference. The headlines may leave no doubt as to the position of the writer and give us to understand that he will be highly critical. From the headline one may gather that the journalist will treat on / dwell upon / underscore / put the light on / deal with / focus on The journalist Identifying the journalist may be relevant: if you work on an article about the gender gap, it is necessary to know whether it was written by a man or a woman; if your article deals with the overthrow of Ben Ali in Tunisia, it could be interesting to know whether the article was written by a special correspondant who witnessed the protest, or by a political analyst.

I. THE INFORMATION • Your first paragraph should answer the following questions and be backed up by quotes: What are the main informative elements in the two articles? Are the same particulars or details mentioned? Are we given only the bare, essential facts? Do the journalists use specific, technical words and a precise lexical field? List them. Do the articles include data, dates, or figures? Do the journalists give their sources? Give some examples. Are the article first-hand accounts? Do the journalists have any specific legitimacy to enquire? Which of the two articles would you consider as the most reliable one? Why?

II. The analysis made by the journalists • Are the articles organized in the same way? Are there different parts? Do they follow a clear line of argument? Is there a logical link between the paragraphs? (Mind the presence of link words) • Are the readers given the historical, economic, social background of the events? What is the time span chosen by the author? Are the journalists reporting isolated events or a set of related events? Are causes and consequences investigated too? • Do the journalists give enough explanations? Which devices are used to make the situation understandable? Is there any visual element complementing the article? Is there any comparison that may help the readers grasp the situation?

III. THE SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS • Do the journalists give their opinions overtly or in a very muted way? Are they straightforward, manipulative, hypocritical, outspoken? • What is the tone used by the journalist? Give and analyse quotes. Is the tone in keeping with the other articles printed in this issue? Is the tone consistent with the subject? Is it the same in the two articles? • Are there some rhetorical devices or images worth mentioning? Quote the texts and compare the styles. • In which article are the adjectives or adverbs more neutral? Quote the text. • Are the journalists silent on other aspects of the issue? • Which of the two articles is the least biased one?

Conclusion The content of your conclusion will depend on the nature and content of the text, and the interest of the comparison itself. • You may eventually compare the journalists’ commitments to journalism ethics. Do they share the same professional values? • You may end up with a comparison of the two outlets themselves and their histories. • You may introduce a third source to broaden the scope of your analysis. • You may conclude on the readers’ possible choice and the possible standardization of opinions. • You may also conclude on the journalists’ freedom of speech: are they paying lip service to the chief editor or the newspaper’s owners? • ETC.

THE NOTS • Do not give your own opinion on the subject. • Do not sum up the events or explain the situation. • Do not separate the analysis of the two articles: this is a comparison. • Do not forget to quote the text or your analysis will remain shallow and disputable. • Do not forget to include peripheral elements in your analysis.

How to quote a text. • The journalist uses many words related to finance: « … » , on line 2, « … » on line 6, etc. • One may find a few words pertaining to finance (e. g. junk bonds, shareholders in the opening paragraph; stock exchange in the Third one, etc. ) • Adverbs like « unashamedly » (l. 3), or « conspicuously » (l. 20) betray the author’s point of view. • The journalist gives the readers precise figures. He reports that the unemployment rate reached 12% in december for instance; further in the text, he indicates that part time jobs account for 40% of all jobs. • The readers are given several examples of criminal acts, namely burglary, robbery, aggravated theft (§ 4), which enable the author to hammer his point home. • Some examples are particularly telling, like the Gramsceen Case, which is cited analysed in details in the 4 th paragraph. • Through his analysis of the 1996 crisis, the author evidences / illustrates / exemplifies his theory.