How have The Guardian and The Sun represented the BBC in two recent news articles?

How have The Guardian and The Sun represented the BBC in two recent news articles?

In recent months the BBC have undertaken huge amounts of criticism over ‘the aborted Newsnight programme on Jimmy Savile’. With this has caused audiences to feel less trustworthy of the BBC as information that started many years ago has only become broadcasted recently for audiences to know.  Many institutions have taken it into their own hands to report audiences of recent news about these situations and two that have recently published articles about it are The Guardian and The Sun newspapers. The Guardian is a daily newspaper that is centre-left meaning Liberal and is owned by the Guardian Media Group. The article published on Friday 23^rd November 2012 by Dan Sabbagh is quite biased however started off talking quite neutrally about the situation. The Sun is also a daily newspaper that is created as a type of discourse called Populism (a political ideology) and is owned by News International a company well known for owning many newspapers such as The Times and The Sunday Times etc. many people would recognise this institution for Rupert Murdoch who was in charge and had a lot to do with the phone hacking scandal. The article recently published by The Sun happened to have almost two articles in one that were published by two different people, the main article was written by Leigh Holmwood, Deputy TV Editor and the other was a point of view article written by the TV Editor himself Colin Robertson.

The article written for The Guardian newspaper is a very serious article, informing the readers of the recent goings on in the Pollard inquiry and giving readers who may not be completed clued up on the case the background information to how it started. The article has obviously been aimed at just informing audiences of the recent situation, however the article then seems to fall into accusing Mark Thompson the former BBC director general into having known about Jimmy Savile and his secret sex abuse and also about the BBC Newsnight wanting to broadcast the investigation to audiences, where it says he said that ‘he had no knowledge of the Savile allegations until ITV’s documentary on the late Jim’ll Fix it Star aired at the beginning of October’ then leading into him being made aware of the Newsnight Savile investigation which ‘he was first made aware of by BBC journalist Caroline Hawley at a Christmas Party a year ago’ but that ‘he did not intervene’. It then informs audiences that ‘he was told by Helen Boaden, the BBC director of news, that because it had been dropped there was nothing for him to worry about’. The article then goes on to inform audiences about how his ‘account altered earlier this month’ when his lawyers ‘sent a letter to the Sunday Times threatening to sue the paper for libel if he was accused of editorial interference’. The article does not include many quotes not even the ones written here however the article eventually sums up that Mark Thompson has a bad part to play in this whole scandal. The word ‘expected’ has also been used numerous times within the article making the information not sound so positive and certain as it should. You could also see it as a way of the newspaper saying what they expect Mark Thompson to do even though he hasn’t done it yet, almost a prediction of the future. The in a way could also make readers feel like their information is not reliable as they haven’t confirmed it to be true, however it has given them a slight idea of the current situation. Readers are also not included within the article making them seem very passive, no audience views have been used or personal views of people included in the situation that aren’t part of the BBC. No rhetorical questions have been used or any sentence phrasing that may make the audiences feel they can answer or ask a question. The only way audiences are included and active is at the end of the article where bullet points are places allowing readers to know contact details if they want to ask any further questions and also of how to get the latest media news on your mobile, via Facebook and Twitter pages.

The article written for The Sun newspaper is in some ways serious but also quite humorous. There are two parts of this article, one part written by Leigh Holmwood the Deputy TV Editor and the other a very biased but point of view area written by Colin Robertson the TV Editor himself. This contrast of two views in the one article is actually a really good idea as not all audiences are going to agree with the one view so by giving two gives readers the opportunity to participate and choose who they agree with, this democracy caused by the situation can also help globalisation. The area of the article written by Leigh Holmwood sums up the whole BBC scandal in a negative way, however sums up the ‘New BBC Chief’ as a ‘supremo’ that has been through some amazing career paths with negative sides to it that we as readers should feel sympathetic to, such being how ‘He received death threats following the murder of the star Jill Dando in 1999’. The article goes on to tell us how he has had such a career in the media industry starting ‘as a news trainee at the BBC 39 years ago’, rising to become head of the news and current affairs from 1996 to 2001, then leaving to become the ‘innovative boss of the Royal Opera House’, to ‘also being appointed to the board of Olympics organisers LOCOG by David Cameron’ himself. The emphasis on these great achievements couldn’t make the man sound any bigger, it’s almost as though he wrote it himself. The article then leads onto the ‘myView’ area written by Colin Robertson TV Editor. This area of the entire article is definitely against the BBC telling readers that ‘At last the BBC gets a grip’. Colin talks of the BBC’s past saying how this ‘is the first decent decision top brass have made…’ allowing audiences to know that the BBC’s past has obviously not been very good which may persuade or just inform audiences that with this new decision the BBC may become different and make a change for the better. Colin informs audiences in quite a critical way that Lord Tony Hall ‘knows the BBC inside out’ however ‘he hasn’t lived his entire professional life in the self-satisfied and dangerously myopic BBC bubble’. The use of the words ‘BBC bubble’ are quite catchy and remember able allowing audiences to remember where they heard them however it also could be seen as classing the BBC as a negative thing. ‘The dangerously myopic BBC bubble’ doesn’t sound very encouraging and makes out all people who are part of that bubble are dangerous when obviously not all are. The use of the word ‘myopic’ is very good allowing audiences to know that for  a while now the BBC have been very distant with its audience and have been creating this blurred edge/defence over something they never bothered to tell their audiences. In a way that sentence completely sums up how the BBC has been with the entire situation and I think any reader could agree with this. Audiences are also very passive when it comes to this article, they aren’t advised to contact The Sun directly or visit any Facebook or Twitter pages however they can click on a link to read more if they want to.

Overall both these articles sum up the BBC in a negative way because they are based around the situations that have occurred lately that the BBC are to blame for. If the BBC had stopped what Jimmy Savile was doing years ago then people (specifically women) would not have to live with this nasty man’s memory for the rest of their life, Newsnight would not have had to create an investigation about it and the BBC would not be to blame for this scandal and would not be losing audiences.