5 days ago, was the morning that the world woke up to its first day with President Trump and whilst a dark blanket covered everyone but Vladimir Putin and 59,399,274 of American citizens, I found it a perfect opportunity to examine how it was portrayed by two of the biggest names in the business.
Round 1: Front page
“For A Greater Britain”=”Make America Great Again”
Am I the only one that thinks these sound similar? Why anyone would want to associate themselves with Donald Trump is beyond me, but The Sun is just the gift that keeps on giving and for the dirt cheap price of 50p, no wonder people buy them. Just as a disclaimer, I do not usually throw money away but for educational purposes, I had to willingly hand my money straight into the gold-lined pockets of Rupert Murdoch.
The Sun have took what one could call a comedic approach to the matter in hand with their front page story marvelling more that The Simpsons have psychic abilities than the fact that Donald Trump had become President, unfortunately someone forgot to tell the news team at The Sun that they are really only fictional characters. Homer Simpson had more of a leading role than the “7 Dead In Tram Horror” and even Lisa Simpson had more of a say, “complaining about her predecessor as she settles in” to the White House. But we should all fasten up our seatbelts as we read the “13 pages of unrivalled coverage” that The Sun has promised us!
At four times the price of the Sun, which I assure you is compensated with quality, The Guardian have also adopted the “stick a picture that will appeal to the people” approach but I can honestly say I’m rather perturbed that I own a picture of Donald Trump that could be stuck on my wall. It is a prime example that age cannot buy you beauty but can grant you some very nice teeth to try to make up for what you lack.
However, I will comment that it is not until page 19 that there is any mention of the seven people killed in the south London tram crash which shares half a page with Currys’ Christmas deals. But all of the US election stories which span a total of 17 pages not including the 12 page supplement are much more politically focused than The Sun which delves more deeper into the Trump himself.
The Sun: 2/5
The Guardian: 3.5/5
Round 2: Quantity of Content
- 13 pages (6.5 if you take away the images)
- 17 pages (and a 12 page supplement)
- The 12 page supplement includes Donald’s path to the White House, all of the colourful things he has said (best and worst four pages I have ever read) , a piece with six female writers responding to his win and front pages of global newspapers
The Sun: 4/5 because I think that 6.5 pages are enough
The Guardian: 4/5 because it could be said to be too much but I am appreciative of the supplement, in addition to the fact that a fair proportion of the pages are not wordy pieces
Round 3: Quality of Content
- “Comb-Oval Office”, “D’OH!” and “The Donasty” if those are quality headlines, I dread to read some truly awful ones
- The amount of times “Prez” is used leads me to the conclusion that the spelling of President is a hazy one for The Sun’s writers
- It is not until page 7 that we stumble across a naked woman, that being the new First Lady because it really adds value to the story. We can not take for granted that The Guardian tell us that Melania Trump was “the first (First Lady) to have posed for nude photos”, we need visual evidence of this vital piece of information
- On page 2, we have another insightful image, this time of the White House with a photo-shopped wig on
- The statistics page is clear and easy to follow but is overrun by the title: THE ANGRY WHITE WAVE. The “millions of angry whites desperate for change”, change being a 2000 mile wall and a closer relationship with Putin. I know you shouldn’t shoot the messenger but…
- An opinion piece by Steve Hilton who declares that supporters of Trump are just wanting the “chance of a good job, a decent income and opportunities for their kids”. I do not doubt that a fraction of supporters do hope for that but it would be incredulous to say that that is what Trump has built his candidacy upon. Hilton claims that Trump supporters are willing to look past his “personal flaws”or perhaps they support him for his flaws, your guess is as good as mine. It is not a case of good vs evil, because both candidates are abundant in flaws, it is a case of, why isn’t there someone better. Clinton and Trump tore America in part to the point where whoever won, half of the country would feel misrepresented and it highlighted that change has to happen.
- If we hadn’t concluded from the first page that The Simpsons had predicted the outcome of the election, the story is continued on page 3
- Did you hear that The Simpsons predicted the election, how cool is that…
- Pages 2 and 3 dedicated to both Clinton and Trump
- Page 4: Did you know the Simpsons predicted that Trump would be president! The piece is only a small fraction of the side and the double page spread details the reaction by the people
- The statistics are detailed clearly and outlines why parts of the country voted the way they did
- Trump’s speech is analysed by Alan Yuhas: informative and contextual
- Double page spread on how foreign leaders are involved
The Sun: 2/5
The Guardian: 4/5
I am completely and utterly biased as much as I try not to be. No one reads The Sun for their thought provoking articles but perhaps their low price. For 50p you can piece together the main events of the American election but have to think for yourself when forming your opinions. When reading The Guardian there is almost but not quite, too much to read and it is my go to paper, but the main moral of the story is: you get what you pay for!
Emily Simms: 20:29