Guardian and Telegraph

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Compare and discuss the differences between how the research is presented in the Guardian and Telegraph articles (text 2 and 3). Pay particular attention to how each reporter uses language and select details to create a particular point of view for each paper. Are there any ethical issues raised by this?

The text from the Guardian and Telegraph both have agendas and deals with two separate issues regarding the new research that was carried out by Professor Jim Taylor and Professor Steve Bradley. The Guardian focuses on the reform side of the argument whereas the Telegraph focuses more on the cost of education.

The Guardian headline questions how the government is under pressure in trying to improve results. This would grab the reader's attention straight away by stating that ‘failing schools reforms put labour under pressure'. This is to convey that the government policies are under pressure to perform better has there as only been a small percentage in the rise of the GCSE A*- C- results over numerous years. Has the Guardian lean towards the left wing it is being politically bias. On the other hand the Telegraph exposes the government by using the taxpayer's money 2 draw their audience attention by greatly sensationalising on their headlines by stating ‘£3bn investments ‘fails to improve education'. This is to express the concerns of the government spending and getting little in return for their investment. The Telegraph states that ‘more than £3 billion spent on the Government's biggest education reforms has had little impact on examination results'. The first line after the headlines emphasises on the money by stating that it was more than ‘£3 billion', this would infuriate the audience even further than when they read it was £3 billion. The Telegraph leans towards the right wing which indicates that it is trying to use the headlines to attack the labour government. They use the colossal amounts of taxpayers' money to attract the left winged audience by stating the ‘study is the latest damming verdict on the massive sums spent on education in England' they also point out that ‘£5oo million invested in a national literacy programme under new labour had failed to improve reading standards among children'. The key words used were massive, failed and £500 million, they used these words to accentuate the fact that Labour is failing to do their jobs accurately.

The language in the Telegraph blows things out of proportion and accuses the government by stating that ‘a huge rise in GCSE pass rates since early ‘90s is due to easier test and not because of a rise in classroom standards'. On the other hand the Guardian plays down on their language has they support the Labour Government by stating that ‘the proportion of students getting five good GCSEs- grades A* to C- increased from 35% to 58% between 1992 and 2006'. The key words are good and increased this is to put emphasis on the fact that due to the high levels of funds being spent on education, it showing that the main policies have been worthwhile because of the increase in results.

Overall the guardian is encouraging of the reform and to a great extent not overly critical of the government. It demonstrates efficiently that the government's investment has not been a waste of time. The quotes from the DCFS counteract the pessimism of the findings from the report. DCFS states that ‘the facts are that specialist schools have delivered significant improvements in standards and outperformed other comprehensives on a range of measures'. Also the spokeswoman says that they will be ‘continuing to have greater success at improving performance of children in deprived areas than non – specialist schools. The DCFS shows the government in a constructive light by using monologue language such as ‘significant improvements',' delivered' and ‘outperform'.

The Telegraph also uses repetition to grab the reader attention by using ‘little impact' and ‘billions, this is to convey that the government has wasted the taxpayers' money. Whereas the Guardian has used ‘failing' to show that there still room for improvement.

Both reporters rose the ethical issue of providing their readers with their points of view which can be one sided has the Guardian supports the labour policies and the Telegraph does not. The Guardian offers a more unbiased point of view with weighing up the positives points with the negatives. Whereas the Telegraph points of view are more one sided has they concentrate more on the negative points than any positives and disregard that the reforms have worked to an extent. Both newspapers were written with an agenda and this was to persuade readers and newcomers to their way of thinking. Overall the Guardian is encouraging of the reforms and depicts the government in a more positive light. The main objective of both broadsheets is to meet the needs of their customers.

Outline how and why the government has presented the GCSE data in its PowerPoint presentation ‘GCSE results' (Text 5) and the DCSF document (Text 4).

The government has made a colourful visual representation of the amended data from the department of Children, Schools and Families. This data is to provide the reader the results of GCSE A* -C grades over the past eleven years. A line graph is used to present facts in a visual form and to display the size of the numerical quantative data and also the line graph is the easiest way to compare numbers. The data the government has used should make facts clearer and more understandable for the reader.

In graph one the graphology is bright and cheery to draw the readers' interest also displaying that there has been an increase in the National Results. The title shows this has the DCSF states that we have met and exceeded our old targets This puts a positive spin on the DCSF but on the other hand they over emphasise the results by stating that in 2008 nearly 129.000 pupils achieved there GCSE grades. The first impression is that the slide is very positive has the data is improving from year to year but when the reader delves into the actual facts and figures over the past eleven years they would only see a 19.7 rise which is under 20%. Even though the graph looks well presented and shows it's risen from 45.1 to 64.8 from 1997- 2008 but it does not account for the 40% that did not accomplish the grade.

In graph two the graphology is the same as graph one but with the exception of how misleading the DCSF has been. The DCSF title starts with English and Maths sets a challenging trajectory for 2011. This is to display that even though these core subjects are challenging for pupils there is still an increase in the grade results. In small writing under the horizontal axis they state that the figure for 1997 are estimated which makes the data very unreliable. The data expresses a gradual rise but disappointing results but the government has tried to display it in the best possible light with colourful graphology.