NEWS REVISION - DIFFERENT OPINIONS
The Daily Mail -
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6832797/JACK-DOYLE-guide-earth-happens-Prime-Ministers-biggest-gamble.html
The Guardian -
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/21/apocalypse-next-week-theresa-may-meaningful-vote
The Mail Online presents this story in a much simpler form in comparison to the Guardian, which is shown through how the text is split into paragraphs each answering questions such as 'WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY?'. Even though the Guardian's article is presented in a more high-brown manner, they still use humorous and include almost witty comments such as 'I realise you don't care about spoilers at this stage, so let me confirm: that bid ends up failing anyway.' The Guardian's article, I feel, is much more open to their political stance against May's conservative party though the article still does give all the necessary information.
I would have expected the Mail Online's article to be much more openly bias in support of May, though instead the article includes rhetorical questions which ask the reader to side with either May or Corbyn.
The Mail Online's article is written by Jack Doyle, the associate politics editor for the Mail.
The Guardian's article is written by Marina Hyde, who works as a columnist for the newspaper, commenting on politics, showbiz and sport.
The Mail Online's article isn't as physically interactive for the reader in comparison to the Guardian's article which includes several hyperlinks within the copy which lead to related articles, some even to other newspapers such as The Times. Other hyperlinks go to social media sites such as Twitter, where related news can be found from similar perspectives.
The Mail's article includes four photos and two videos, in which for one a reader needs to watch an advert first before being able to view the video. Whereas the Guardian only uses one photo and one video within the article, with only the video providing related information to the topic of Brexit, as the picture included links to the idea of the apocalypse of Brexit.
There are multiple adverts throughout the Mail Online's website, for instance for a brand selling chocolate boxes and then also a brand selling furniture. Whereas the Guardian advertise their own products such as Guardian Weekly, as well as having one advertisement for Boots No.7.
The Mail Online's article can be shared across any social media outlet very easily due to multiple links being shown above the article as well as informing the reader how many times it had already been shared (85). Whereas the social media influence is much smaller on the Guardian's website, as it only shows small icons at the side of the copy, also showing how many shares the article has had (8497). This shows the difference in readership between the two articles, or this may just infer that those reading the Guardian's articles are more likely to then share on social media.
The websites also show how many comments have been left on the articles, the Mail has 813 in comparison to the Guardian's 1001 comments. The Mail Online's readers leave very simplistic and narrow-minded comments, such as 'LOVE THE PICTURE OF MAY BEHIND BARS'. Whereas the Guardian's comments are generally much longer and more in depth, possibly showing a deeper understanding to the topic of politics.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6832797/JACK-DOYLE-guide-earth-happens-Prime-Ministers-biggest-gamble.html
The Guardian -
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/21/apocalypse-next-week-theresa-may-meaningful-vote
The Mail Online presents this story in a much simpler form in comparison to the Guardian, which is shown through how the text is split into paragraphs each answering questions such as 'WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY?'. Even though the Guardian's article is presented in a more high-brown manner, they still use humorous and include almost witty comments such as 'I realise you don't care about spoilers at this stage, so let me confirm: that bid ends up failing anyway.' The Guardian's article, I feel, is much more open to their political stance against May's conservative party though the article still does give all the necessary information.
I would have expected the Mail Online's article to be much more openly bias in support of May, though instead the article includes rhetorical questions which ask the reader to side with either May or Corbyn.
The Guardian's article is written by Marina Hyde, who works as a columnist for the newspaper, commenting on politics, showbiz and sport.
The Mail Online's article isn't as physically interactive for the reader in comparison to the Guardian's article which includes several hyperlinks within the copy which lead to related articles, some even to other newspapers such as The Times. Other hyperlinks go to social media sites such as Twitter, where related news can be found from similar perspectives.
The Mail's article includes four photos and two videos, in which for one a reader needs to watch an advert first before being able to view the video. Whereas the Guardian only uses one photo and one video within the article, with only the video providing related information to the topic of Brexit, as the picture included links to the idea of the apocalypse of Brexit.
There are multiple adverts throughout the Mail Online's website, for instance for a brand selling chocolate boxes and then also a brand selling furniture. Whereas the Guardian advertise their own products such as Guardian Weekly, as well as having one advertisement for Boots No.7.
The Mail Online's article can be shared across any social media outlet very easily due to multiple links being shown above the article as well as informing the reader how many times it had already been shared (85). Whereas the social media influence is much smaller on the Guardian's website, as it only shows small icons at the side of the copy, also showing how many shares the article has had (8497). This shows the difference in readership between the two articles, or this may just infer that those reading the Guardian's articles are more likely to then share on social media.
The websites also show how many comments have been left on the articles, the Mail has 813 in comparison to the Guardian's 1001 comments. The Mail Online's readers leave very simplistic and narrow-minded comments, such as 'LOVE THE PICTURE OF MAY BEHIND BARS'. Whereas the Guardian's comments are generally much longer and more in depth, possibly showing a deeper understanding to the topic of politics.
Comments
Post a Comment