IPSO - independent press standards areas organisation. Independent from any newspaper, or the government. (in the UK, we do not have state controlled media)
Headline in The Times about Trump - “Great survival cheats death”. A clear dramatization of events, building a story to make something more exciting. Potentially false information, but very conventional of newspapers.
The Mirror explicitly names and prints pictures of individuals under the age of 16. However, this is clearly a story in the public interest, and the images appear to be professionally taken and taken with consent
The Times has a page with three stories about murders. Each of these stories includes a range of personal information, and may involve an intrusion into grief and/or privacy. However, it can be argued that this is in the public interest. Such calls are highly subjective=
Suzy Lamplugh murder story in The mirror. Story is actually about her murderer dying aged 70 in prison. Many issues with printing this story. Focuses on the death of the murderer. By doing so, this story will doubtless intrude into the grief of the victim's family. Arguably the story is not newsworthy, and instead only exists to manufacture outrage. Bringing back memories of anger, brings a conclusion to the narrative
The Times - discusses and names the boy killed in a house explosion. Exposing him and his family to intrusion, and potentially completely unethical.
The Times - “War on Woke”. A deliberate encouragement to rise against certain ideological perspectives, and a tacit support of Trump’s policies. Additionally, drawing attention to a supposed ‘war’ may exacerbate issues, and cause potential problems
Spin - where the ‘take’ or ideology of the producer is added to a news story
Big double page splash story in The Mirror focusing on ‘Papa Will’ (AKA Prince William) and his wife’s cancer could very well be an intrusion into grief. Furthermore, selection of images and even printing the names and ages of Prince William’s children seemingly contravenes IPSO guidelines. However, editors could argue that the family are in the public eye and the story is in the public interest. This is a clear example of the ineffectiveness of newspaper regulation in the UK.
The Times features three separate stories about murders on page 15. May cause harm and offense for the audience, reinforcing a sense of fear. Additionally, it is a clear intrusion in to the grief of families who are affected. However, it can be argued that these stories are very much in the public interest. Widespread coverage of murder, especially serial murder actively causes murders.
Story involving a seven year old child killed in a house blast names the deceased. Reinforces the ideology that we live in a terrible world that encourages audiences to buy the newspaper day after day. However, this does not breach guidelines. However, naming the boy removes his privacy, and also the story intrudes into grief. However… public interest
Regulations applied in a highly subjective way, clearly to maximise coverage and to maximise potential
The Time’s coverage of the Trump re-election goes into some detail about his sexism and his sex crimes, and may offend or harm audiences affected by this. However, this is accurate reportage of a crime. However, the Times is broadly supportive of Trump in spite of acknowledging his crimes, which means essentially they are supporting a criminal.
BONUS REGULATION - The Daily Mail and the Sidebar of Shame
Click to view full size
Lexis consistently infers consent, as in that the individual has agreed for this to happen. Words such as ‘pose’ and ‘stuns’.
The selection of images has clearly been taken with a telephoto lens, and positions the audience in a voyeuristic mode of address, like a spy. The MES of the image sees the model facing away from the camera, emphasising her body and in particular her buttocks. This is a classic example of objectification, exploitation, and sexualisation
The model has been selected because she is hegemonically attractive, and is a famous actress
The lexis is extremely simple, inferring an uneducated audience, and the constant repetition reinforces not only the inferred consent, but also the notability of this story is constructed through her fame.
Furthermore, the story is heavily dramatized, constructing a narrative where Hudgens has just got married. This invites the audience to share in her special day, through using voyeuristic mode of address.
The article constructs a friendly and relatable mode of address, despite the images clearly being taken without her permission, and infers her consent through the scandalous and often sexually suggestive language
Presents an aspirational mode of address for the heterosexual female target audience... and also invites target audience to criticise the bodies of other women
