Write a detailed analysis of the 'Daily Mirror' article.
We studied in detail an article from the tabloid newspaper, the 'Daily Mirror'. The story concerns a suspected food poisoning incident at a fast food restaurant in Preston, in 1991.
Obviously, the first text to strike your eye is the large bold headline:
'BIG MAC BURGER BUG ALERT'
The words in the headline are short (only 1/2 syllables) and sharp. This is exaggerated by the alliteration of the 'B', a harsh sounding letter. The vocabulary is simple but sensationalised. For example, the word 'alert' suggests that something is seriously wrong. This may make readers carry on, to see if this situation might affect them. The headline has been written to dramatize what is not a very 'big' story, making it seem much more important than it really is.
After the bold, attention-grabbing headline comes the slightly more in-depth subheading:
'Health warning after food poison outbreak'
Although this subheading's job is not really to grab the reader's attention, the use of sensationalised and alarmist vocabulary is still apparent. The word 'poison' has serious undertones, suggesting toxic, deadly substances. Another strong term is 'outbreak'. This suggests that incidents of the food poisoning have been on the increase, and might spread further.
The article proper then begins, with an introductory paragraph in bold type :
'A BURGER alert went out last night after nine children who
ate at McDonalds were hit by a terrifying food bug'
the introductory paragraph tries to make a summary of the story in a couple of lines and is subsequently more down-to-earth than the headline and subhead; however there is still some extreme language, typified by the the use of the hyperbole 'terrifying'. I feel that this is probably because the authors of the article feel that it is this paragraph which will make the reader decide whether to read on or give up, Therefore the story still has to seem worth reading about. The repetition of the word 'alert' from the headline emphasises the serious nature of the incident.
After the bold introductory paragraph, the article continues with more information about what happened, when it happened and who it happened to :
'Three "Big Mac" youngsters suffered rare, and potentially
fatal kidney damage. One victim was two years old.'
The first sentence plays up the possible consequences of the incident. I feel that the verb 'suffered' suggests that the so-called 'victims' were subject to terrible pain and distress, when we obviously have no real evidence to say that this is the case. The article also manages to make the extremely unlikely result of death from the food poisoning seem all too real. The second sentence preys upon the reader's sentiment, on the 'innocence of youth' theme.
The article does not really rely on secondary sources to deliver its story, preferring to give its own opinion. In fact, the only direct quote in the article is really only used as a 'special effect'.
'The Department of Health said it had found a "highly
significant association" between eating burgers which
were not properly cooked ...'
As I mentioned above, the article only uses this small direct quote - most quotes of this kind would simply go over the average tabloid reader's head. In fact, the article uses this to its advantage. The implication of the 'complicated', polysyllabic words is that the Department of Health is 'intelligent' enough to use these terms, but this is done in such as way as to not 'bombard' the reader.
Throughout the article, sensationalised and alarmist vocabulary is used to shock and incite the reader. This is particularly evident in the closing sentence:
'All the victims, including a toddler, suffered severe diaorrhea.'
The use of the word 'victim' makes the people involved seem like the innocent party, having to endure some kind of unbearable torment, through no fault of their own. Checking to see whether their burgers were cooked sounds like quite a good idea to me.
The two-year-old toddler returns in the next part of the sentence, hoping to cause more reader indignation.
Severe diaorrhea is hardly a pleasant way to end the article, but being pleasant is not the article's intent. It have been written to shock the reader and by a careful selection of the facts, this is made possible.