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 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 and analysed in details in the 4th paragraph.
• Through his analysis of the 1996 crisis, the author evidences / illustrates /
exemplifies his theory.